ePrints Soton
Copyright and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other
copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal noncommercial
research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be
reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing
from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold
commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the
copyright holders.
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title,
awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g.
AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name
of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, SCIENCE & MATHEMATICS
School of Engineering Sciences
by
Komsan Maneepan
August 2007
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Ajit Shenoi, Dr. Han Koo Jeong
and Dr. James Blake for their academic supervision, support and kind encouragement
throughout the work period.
I also express my thanks to Prof. W.G. Price, the head of the School of Engineering
Sciences, Prof. P.A. Wilson and all members of Fluid Interaction Research group for
their kind support. Special thanks to Dr. MingYi Tan for his technical support. I also
would like to thank Dr. A.K. Nayak, Dr. N. Samphathkumar, Dr S.W. Boyd and Dr. K.
Djidjeli for the useful discussions.
I wish to thank my mother, my sisters and my wife for their never ending support in
my life. I also dedicate this work to my father. Finally, thanks to the Royal Thai Navy
for providing me with financial support throughout the research program.
Abstract
Composite materials (herein means Fibre Reinforced Plastic, FRP) are increasingly used
in the construction of marine vehicles because of their outstanding strength, stiffness and
light weight properties. However, the use of FRP comes with difficulties in the design
process as a result of the large number of design variables involved: composite material
design, topologies and laminate schemes. All variables are related to each other leading to
a high dimensional and flexible design space. It is hard to use traditional design methods
in order to gain solutions for an initial design stage in a short time. Hence, this thesis
deals with the presentation of a structural synthesis (optimisation framework) for plate
components of composite ship structures. The framework broadly consists of an optimisation technique and structural analytical methods.
To make the framework compatible with the nature of composite ship structural design problems, the Genetic Algorithm (GA) is selected as the optimisation tool because
of its robustness, its ability in dealing with both continuous and discrete variables and its
excellent searching for a global optimum. The typical plate types in a ship structure are
the stiffened and unstiffened plates. For a stiffened plate, the combination of the grillage
analysis of energy method based on Navier solution and an equivalent elastic properties
approach are introduced. Using this, it is possible to produce layer by layer optimisation
results for the base plate, web and crown of the stiffened plate. Unfortunately, solutions of
the adopted grillage analysis do not cover the mechanical behaviour of the plate between
stiffeners so the HigherOrder Shear Deformation Theory (HSDT) must be employed.
ii
Abstract
iii
This method provides accurate solutions for thin to moderately thick plates with a compromised computational time. Then stiffness, strength and stability can be considered in
the design problem.
Abstract
iv
2. Maneepan K., Shenoi R.A., Jeong H.K. and Blake J.I.R. (2006) Multiobjective optimisation of orthogonally tophatstiffened composite laminates plates, Proceedings of 25th
international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, June 49, 2006,
Hamburg, Germany, OMAE200692442
3. Maneepan K., Shenoi R.A., Blake J.I.R. and Jeong H.K. (2007) Genetic Algorithms
(GAs) based optimisation of FRP composite plated grillages in ship structures, International Journal of Maritime Engineering, (accepted for publication)
Contents
Acknowledgements
Abstract
ii
List of Figures
ix
List of Tables
xii
Nomenclature
xiv
1 Introduction
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
29
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
v
CONTENTS
vi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Grillage analysis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.2
3.3.3
50
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2 Methodology adopted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3 Description of the optimisation framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5 Structural analysis and Optimisation procedure
54
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2 Grillage analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.3 Higher order shear deformation theory (HSDT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.4 Genetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.4.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.4.2
Initial population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.4.3
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.4.4
Exploiting operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.4.5
Exploring operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
75
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.2 Grillage analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.3 Higher order shear deformation theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
CONTENTS
vii
Varying GA operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.4.2
91
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2 Parametric study of grillage structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.3 Unidirectional stiffened plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.3.1
Maximise stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.3.2
Maximise strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.3.3
7.4.2
7.4.3
110
Maximise stiffness
8.3.2
8.3.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
119
123
126
CONTENTS
References
viii
128
List of Figures
1.1 Stiffened single skin structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2 (a) Tophat cross section of girders and beams with the local coordinate for
fibre layup (b) Geometric parameters of girders and (c) Geometric parameters of beams
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
60
List of Figures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.5 The influence of fibre angle on Failure Index (FI) from maximum stress
criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.6 Convergence of GA run for maximisation of strength: unidirectional stiffened plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
7.7 Convergence of GA run for weight minimisation: unidirectional stiffened
plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7.8 Convergence of GA run for maximisation of stiffness: cross stiffened plates 103
7.9 Convergence of GA run for maximisation of strength: cross stiffened plates 105
7.10 Convergence of GA run for weight minimisation: cross stiffened plates . . . 107
8.1 The effect of Youngs modulus of fibre and layer thickness on central deflection
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8.2 The effect of Youngs modulus of fibre and layer thickness on critical uniaxial compressive buckling load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
List of Figures
xi
List of Tables
2.1 Marine composite construction productivity rates from Eric Greene Associates Inc. (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.6 Comparison of nondimensionalised uniaxial buckling loads (N) of the developed TSDT program with those of TSDT, FSDT and CLPT of Reddy
(1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
xii
xiii
List of Tables
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
. . . . . . . . . 92
7.2 Minimisation of the central deflection for the unidirectional stiffened laminated plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.3 Minimisation of Failure Index (FI) at three positions on the unidirectional
stiffened laminated plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.4 Weight minimisation of unidirectional stiffened laminated plate subjected
to stiffness and strength constraints
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.1 Minimisation of central deflection for the unstiffened laminated plate . . . 114
8.2 Maximise strength of the unstiffened laminated plate . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.3 Maximisation of buckling load for the unstiffened laminated plate . . . . . 117
Nomenclature
Aw
Areal weight
ab , ag
b, g
B, L
D b , Dg
dna(i)
E1 , E2
Eb(i) , Eg(i)
Ef
Exm
Eyb
F I1, F I2
F I12
xiv
Nomenclature
xv
G12
hb , hg
Ib(i) , Ig(i)
I(i)
Icx(i)
m, n
Wave numbers
Mg , Qg
ncb , nwb
Nb , Ng
Ncr
SF1 , 1
SF2 , 2
t, tk
tcb , twb
Tcg , Tcb
Twg , Twb
u, v, w
Nomenclature
xvi
v12 , v21
Zg
max
bp , cg , wg
b , g
bt , gt
b , g
GA glossary:
Genes
Chromosome
Genotype
Individual
Nomenclature
xvii
Population
Phenotype
Reproduction
Genetic operator
Parent
Offspring
Crossover
Mutation
Fitness
Pool
Selection
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
General introduction
The use of FRP in various industries has been expanding for the few last decades due to
their attractive strength to weight ratio and unique manufacturing techniques, tailoring
the strength of materials for certain design specifications.
In the ship building industry, FRP has been used for many types of ship, such as passenger ferries, lifeboats, minecountermeasure vessels and yachts. Typically the structural
styles of these FRP ships can be classified into four types:
(type1) Tophat stiffened single skin structure
(type2) Monocoque structure
(type3) Sandwich structure
(type4) Corrugated structure
Although each type has its own advantages and disadvantages which designers have to
consider, for all of these structural types un/stiffened plates are the main components of
the hulls leading to a similarity in the initial design stage. Out of these structural styles,
type1 should be an excellent design example. It is intensively used in ship construction
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
(Figure 1.1) because of the ease of fitting equipment, cost reductions with increasing number of hulls and ease of quality control. In the design of unstiffened plates, for example
Looking at stiffened plates, the number of design variables is higher so that a large design
space is inevitable. Examples of additional variables are section height, section width,
web angle and flange width, as well as web and crown layup. Moreover, the failure modes
of the plates are more complicated because of their complex geometry. For instance,
column buckling of stiffener/plate combination, shear buckling of webs and interlaminar
shear failure of the flange to base plate bond are considered.
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.2
As mentioned above, it is noticed that if the ship structure is designed to be for example
the strongest, lightest and cheapest, the design scheme is complicated due to issues such
as composite material design, production process, alternative lamination schemes and alternative topologies. Hence, the design of composite ship structures can be considered to
be challenging research.
The aim of this work can be stated as follows: the optimisation methodology for minimising the weight of un/stiffened laminated plates is introduced, implemented and proved
for its use in the initial design stage. The main advantage of the proposed methodology
is providing quick solutions of structural dimensions and composite material design.
Chapter 2
Review of optimisation techniques
for structural design
2.1
Introduction
Since there are many aspects that must be considered in the design process of composite
structures, at the beginning of this chapter the definition of constituents, production
processes and manufacturing cost classifications are briefly described to remind the reader
of these fundamental concepts. Next, the marine applications of FRP are reviewed in order
to gain an understanding of how it is used in practice. Then ship design methods and their
limitations are explained. A literature review on ship design is also presented. As the
nature of the design problem is repeatable, optimisation techniques are commonly used
as a tool in the design process. Those optimisation techniques and their applications to
composite structures are reviewed and this could be a guideline in finding the appropriate
techniques for this work.
2.2
factor having influence on the composite properties is the selection of component materials whose characteristics are illustrated as follows [111].
Polyesters are the most commonly used for marine structural applications because of their
low cost and ease of use in manufacturing processes. However, they provide only moderate
mechanical properties and in the open mould, styrene emissions are high during the curing process. High resin shrinkage between 5 to 8 % occurs during cure. The working life
(shelflife) is limited to typically 6 to 12 months while pot life may be anything from a few
minutes to several hours depending on the room temperature and the quantity of catalyst.
Vinylesters have been used to a limited extent since they are expensive. Similar to
polyesters, high cure shrinkage and styrene emissions have been found during curing process. Nevertheless, they provide a very high chemical/ environmental resistance and high
mechanical properties.
Epoxies offer various superior properties compared to other resin types such as high mechanical and thermal properties, high water resistance, high temperature resistance and
long working times. However, they are the most expensive of the three types described.
The reinforcement is typically in the form of fibres with significantly higher mechanical properties than the resins. In marine application, the common fibres are Eglass,
Sglass, carbon and aramids. Because the characteristics of Eglass are high electrical resistance, high strength and lowest cost related to the price of other fibre types (see Figure
2.1), it is widely used in marine FRP construction. Sglass offers higher tensile strength
Carbon fibres are available in a variety of strengthmodulus characteristics. Two typical carbon fibres are high strength carbon (HS) and high modulus carbon (HM). HS is
more widely used than HM because HM is more expensive than HS due to a requirement
of a higher production temperature. Since all carbon fibre types have relatively low density compared to Eglass, their application is found in the structures where weight saving
is a major design requirement.
The composite properties depend on not only the selected constituents but also composite structural forms which can be expressed as follows:
Unidirectional lamina, where all fibres run in one direction only, is a basic form of continuous fibre composite. Its stiffness and strength along the fibre direction are much greater
than those in the transverse direction. This composite form is rarely found in real applications but in the basic design stage of a large structure, generally it can be used as the
simplified model for complex composite forms.
Woven fabrics are produced by the interlacing of warp (0) fibre and weft (90) fibre in
a regular pattern or weave style (e.g. twill, plain weave, basket weave and satin). Hence,
a flexible fibre is suitable for this composite form. This composite form gives better inplane transverse properties than the unidirectional lamina.
The laminate forms are comprised of more than one unidirectional or woven lamina arranged with different fibre angles. The mechanical behaviours of this form strongly rely
on its stacking sequence. The applications example of this composite form can be found
in the structures of small crafts such as lifeboats.
A hybrid composite is a composite having more than one fibre type or a composite
combined with metal. This composite form gains benefits from the best combination
of different fibre types or from other material types.
Chopped strand mat (CSM) consists of randomly oriented chopped fibres which are held
together by resin. The advantages of CSM are very fast wet out time (an impregnated
reinforcement time) and excellent drape properties. However, it can be attacked by passage of moisture through the membrane (or osmosis).
Another factor affecting the quality of a composite is the production method, such as
hand layup, spray layup, filament winding, pultrusion and so on. Out of these methods,
hand layup, the oldest method, is widely used because it is flexible, it requires little capital investment and prior knowledge, as well as being highly economical for prototypes
and short production series. Briefly the procedures of this method are that the fibre
mat is simply laid into an open mould by hand and resin is then applied with a brush.
After that, the laminate is rolled and allowed to cure under standard atmospheric pressure.
Spray layup was developed as an alternative to hand layup in order to raise the productivity. Generally, chopped fibre and resin are simultaneously sprayed by spray gun
into the mould and the laminate is rolled. Although the cost of this method is lower than
hand layup, a lower composite quality is obtained.
Resin transfer moulding (RTM) is used to obtain a higher quality laminate and high
fibre volume fraction. RTM is the most common liquid moulding method and it is capable of producing large, complex and highly integrated components. Moreover, it combines
low capital cost, low mould cost with a quality work. In this process, the closed mould
is used with dry reinforcement and the mould can be closed in various ways. The low
viscosity liquid resin is injected into the mould by vacuum pressure.
Although the use of composites leads to many benefits, high manufacturing cost will
be faced for some applications. Therefore, this cost aspect is the major issue that the
designer must consider. Generally, the total cost consists of two parts: direct and indirect
cost. Direct cost is defined as the cost which directly attributes to the manufacture of
a specific product. These are the costs of materials and labour. For composite marine
construction, material and production costs are closely related. The high cost material
needs high skilled labour and more complicated production facilities. Production cost
depends on many factors such as type of vessel constructed, production quantities and
shipyard efficiency. Table 2.1 shows a source of rough estimating data as it applies to various types of construction. It can be seen that the type of construction and application of
the ship can affect the work done and labour cost, for example the labour cost of single
skin with frames is higher than that of sandwich construction for a Scott fibreglass boat
construction.
Table 2.1: Marine composite construction productivity rates from Eric Greene Associates
Inc. (2001)
kg/hour
m2 /hour hours/m2
(lbs/hour) (f t2 /hour) (hour/f t2 )
Single skin with frames
Recreational
9.07
3.7
0.27
(20)
(33)
(0.03)
Scott
Military
5.44
1.86
0.54
fibreglass
(12)
(20)
(0.05)
boat
Sandwich Construction
Recreational
4.54
1.58
0.63
construction
(10)
(17)
(0.6)
Military
2.72
0.93
1.08
(6)
(10)
(10)
Single skin with frames
Flat panel (Hull)
5.90
2.04
0.49
(13)
(22)
(0.05)
Stiffeners & Frames
2.27
0.84
1.19
(5)
(9)
(12)
BLA
Core preparation for
Flat panel (Hull)
11.79
3.99
0.25
combatant
(26)
(43)
(0.02)
Feasibility
sandwich construction
Stiffeners
11.79
3.99
0.25
Study
(26)
(43)
(0.02)
Vacuum assisted resin
Flat panel (Hull)
4.54
3.99
0.25
(10)
(43)
(0.02)
Transfer molding (VARTM)
Stiffeners
3.18
1.30
0.77
(7)
(14)
(0.07)
Type of Construction
Application
2.3
10
In the early 1940s, small boats, such as canoes, speedboats, coastal yachts and lifeboats,
traditionally built of wood were firstly changed to use FRP as a result of their lower initial
and maintenance cost and more freedom in design. For luxury yachts or highspeed boats,
high cost carbon fibres are attractive because of their lightweight properties compared to
other fibre types. To avoid a serious unexpected failure from misused carbon fibre in
sailboats, Sponberge (1986) discussed the basic sailboat hull engineering and studied the
results of flexural as well as impact tests conducted on five different sandwiches.
For larger ships (e.g. cargo vessels, fast ferries and hovercraft), Smith (1990) concluded
that ships built of FRP are limited to ship lengths less than about 40 m since the smaller
the hull size, the cheaper the construction cost by comparison to those built of steel. However, due to the advance of manufacturing technologies and the demand for composite
ships at the present time, Mouritz et al. (2001) have predicted that ships up to 160 m
may be built from FRP by the year 2020. This prediction is supported by the trend curve
of the length of composite ships against the year of construction. To make this prediction
possible, the fabrication technology needs to be developed. Horsmon and Bernhard (2003)
for instance provided fabrication details with practical considerations for the production
of large composite vessels in an efficient and cost effective manner.
Mouritz et al. (2001) presented a detailed review on naval ships and submarines. It
has been mentioned that naval patrol boats are rarely built longer than about 20 m because of their low hull girder stiffness which is the main problem of building ships with
composite. This is backed up by the deflection estimation of hull girders of a 50 m long
composite vessel which is higher than that of steel vessels by about 240 % presented by
Alm (1983). However, this stiffness problem can be solved by using a sandwich structure.
For example, the Swedish Navy in the late 1980s built a 30 m long surface effect ship
known as the Smyge MPC2000, from sandwich composite materials. With these materials, the ship had a light weight, excellent corrosion resistance, high damage resistance
11
against underwater shock loading, a number of stealth properties and good noise damping
properties.
Submarines are built of FRP because of the high pressure and corrosion resistance as
well as the reduction of weight and magnetic signature. Tucker (1979) successfully built
a civilian submarine from Eglass/polyester resin fabricated by the hand layup method.
12
The submarine can operate in moderate sea depth. Morisano (2003) built a human powered submarine from composite material to achieve the highest strength to weight ratio.
In the past, to reduce the topside weight of ships, aluminium alloy have been used as
the building material for the superstructure while the ship hull is made of steel. However, aluminium alloy superstructures have poor fire resistance. Furthermore, due to the
dissimilarity of building materials, there is a widespread cracking between hull and superstructure leading to expensive repairs. To overcome this, FRP has been recommended
to replace the aluminium because their tensile and compressive strength is close to mild
steel and FRP has a lower Youngs modulus than mild steel. This is likely to eliminate
fatigue failure induced by cyclic, waveinduced bending of the ship hull. An example of a
ship with a composite superstructure section for instance is the Lafayette frigate.
Composites have also found use in other applications. Marsh (2001) reported that composite drive shafts are benefiting vessels ranging from lifeboats to cruise ships because of
their lighter weight, saving on complexity, resistance to corrosion, absorbing torque and
tolerating tensional shocks. Recently, a carbon fibre shaft, 23 m in length, was chosen for
use in an auto express catamaran built for Minoan High Speed Ferries. Another example
are propellers, traditionally made of high stiffness metal materials, which deform only
slightly and are usually designed to work at a constant speed, operating at reduced efficiency at other speeds. To overcome this drawback, the composite propeller is introduced
which can deform to operate more efficiently at a variety of speeds. Lee and Lin (2004)
determined fibre orientation in a composite propeller to obtain the most efficient design.
2.4
Design methods
Ship design is usually described with the aid of the design spiral, which consists of three
types of constraints: direct constraints on the design, constraints on the design process and
constraints originating from the design environment. Typical steps in the spiral include
13
inputting ship parameters, selecting machinery, calculating weight balance, checking seakeeping, calculating longitudinal strength and estimating cost, including life cycle costs.
It can be seen that the design of the ship structure is a part of the spiral. Due to the
scope of this work, the ship structural designs are described as follows.
Ship structural design can be achieved by: rule based design, first principle design or
stochastic method.
Rule base design, the oldest approach, is related to load consideration, strength and design
criteria from classification rules. It is easy to use when determining structural dimensions
of a ship and it helps to save time in the design office and approval process. However,
its simplified formulas cannot distinguish between structural adequacy and overadequacy
and they can only be used within certain limits. Furthermore, the available classification
rules for ships built of FRP have their own standards and limitations. Lloyds Register
(LR) provides rules applying to ships less than 30 m length and the American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS) rules are limited to ships upto 50 m. Hence, if ship length exceeds the
scope of classification rules, first principle design (finding dimensions based on applying
structural theory directly) or stochastic methods are required.
First principle design consists of three parts: design load, structural response analysis
and strength assessment. The loads acting on a ship are such as still water global loads,
wave loads, local loads, external pressure loads, internal loads (liquid tanks/dry cargo)
and dynamic loads. For instance, the vertical load (qsv ) of still water global loads can be
determined from the following equation:
qsv (x) = b(x) w(x)
(2.1)
where b(x) is the buoyancy force, w(x) is the weight of the ship and x is the distance
along the ship length.
14
The structural responses of the hull girder and the associated members can be subdivided into three components: primary response (entire hull), secondary response (e.g.
stiffened panels, main deck and double bottom) and tertiary response (unstiffened plate).
At the initial design stage, the primary response is analysed when the ship bends as
a beam under the longitudinal distribution load. The formulas for this analysis are based
on beam theory. For example, the bending moment (M) at a cross section of a composite
beam can be found by Eq.3.16 in the next chapter.
To evaluate the secondary response, the theories reviewed in section 8.3.1 in Chapter
3 could be used, namely grillage analysis, equivalent orthotropic plate method (EOPM)
and folded plate method (FPM). For tertiary response, the uses of equivalent single laminate theories (ESL) are possible. However, those theories are analytical methods which
could have a difficulty for complex geometry or structures subjected to various boundary
conditions. As a result of this, numerical methods such as the finite element method
(FEM) are often used to analyse those structures.
For the strength assessment part, ultimate bending moment, ultimate strength, buckling, yielding, serviceability and ultimate limit states are considered. The occurance of
yielding, for example can be assessed by using the Von Mises yield criterion for steel ship
and composite failure criterion (e.g. TsaiWu, TsaiHill, Maximum stress criteria) for
composite ships.
The stochastic method is a design procedure based on a probabilistic model for loads
and strength. The output of this method is the required strength of the structure, which
can be derived from safety factors related to the calculation of the probability of failure
(Pf ). Pf is calculated from a probability distribution function of all relevant quantities:
loads, load effects (e.g. hull girder bending moment) and limit values. Since the probability distributions of loads and load effects are less known and the distributions of limit
15
values, arising from many separated variations (material properties, accuracy of analysis,
etc.) are not easy to obtain, this design method is less favoured compared to other methods.
To study the development in ship design, the following papers have been reviewed. Optimisation of ship structures is not a new concept.
Within the Transaction of RINA, Moe (1968) designed the longitudinal strength members of tankers to gain their minimum cost and weight by the nonlinear programming
optimisation procedure. Subsequently, Fisher (1972) presented economic optimisation
procedures in preliminary design in which the unconstrained minimisation method of
Nelder and Mead (1965) was employed. Smith (1973) used nonlinear programming to
minimise the weight of an oil tanker design. Watson (1976) considered how the relationship between dimensions, the coefficients and approximate formulae of traditional naval
architecture had changed and their consequent improvement in ship design. With further advances in computational power, the consideration that the design success of a
ship in operation is often based on more than one objective was applied by Sen (1992)
who proposed the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) method and applied the
methodology to design various types of ship. From 1980s to the present day, whilst
papers have been published on design philosophies and techniques and Andrews (1981),
Chalmers (1982), Frieze (1987), Keane (1988), Loukakis (1988) and Andrews (2003), there
have been few publications involved with design optimisation of ships and ship structures.
Hughes (1997) presented a strategy for achieving a first principles optimum structural
design of a ship using modern computerbased tools (MAESTRO program containing
16
safety factor from DNV (HSLC) Rules). The optimisation was done for minimum weight
of aluminium and composite ships under the constraint of a strength criteria. The structural analysis depends on the Finite Element Method (FEM) which could lead to a high
computational time. The design variables are the structural scantlings (e.g. plate thickness).
Rigo (2001) and Rigo and Fleury (2001) presented the development of LBR5 (stiffened
panels software) which includes a new design methodology consisting of three basic modules: cost, constraint and optimisation. LBR5 can be used for complex floating structures
generally comprising of stiffened cylindrical shells which are built of isotropic material
only. Design variables that can be dealt with are plate thickness, stiffener dimension and
stiffener spacing. Since the LBR5 does not include a finite element analysis, it is fast in
obtaining the optimal solution.
Karr et. al. (2002) introduced a combination of three existing computer applications:
LBR5, ISSMIDT (an integrated process/product model for the design of midship sections of tankers) and virtual reality simulations as a generic design methodology for simulation based ship design. The example application is performed on the midship section
of a double hull cargo vessel.
Moreover based on the ISSC reports, it has been found that many papers present only
the applications of ship structural design software and the improvement in capability of
these software. It is therefore apparent that there is a lack of published research into
frameworks for optimising composite ship structure.
2.5
Optimisation is the act of obtaining the best results under given circumstances. Over one
hundred years, optimisation has been of great interest to both theoreticians and engineers.
17
For engineering, it is very important because designers have to take many technical and
managerial decisions in several stages. To help the designer, nowadays computers are
commonly used as a design tool. Figure 2.3 shows a general example of how designers
and computers work together.
Design Analysis
New
Concept
Formulation
Critical Evaluation
Judgment stage
Output interface
Calculation stage
Input interface
Idea Stage
Concept Formulation
Results
In the idea stage, designers consider concept formulations and construct optimisation
functions. In the calculation stage, these functions are implemented in a program by
which the computer calculates the results. The judgment stage is that if these results
do not satisfy their requirements, a new design formulation process is started. From the
design decision process, it can be seen that the nature of design procedure is iterative and
it can be set as an optimisation problem whose components are generalised as:
18
To solve the optimisation problem, there are numerous optimisation techniques available, which can be classified based on the existence of constraints and the nature of the
design variables as shown in Figure 2.4.
Optimisation
Unconstrained
Continuous
Newtons
method
Powells
method
Hooke and
Jeeve method
Discrete
Random
method
Genetic
algorithm
Simulated
anealing
Constrained
Continuous
Discrete
Integer
programming
Simplex
method
Penalty
function
method
Sequential
quadratic
programming
19
The developments of these techniques begin with unconstrained class. The oldest technique is based on differential calculus that was firstly introduced by Newton and/or Leibniz during the later part of the 17th century (Manoha (1993)). It is limited to only
an unconstrained problem related to minmax condition of calculus. Similarly, Newtons
method is introduced by using the first few terms of a series expansion of a function about
a point (Taylor series expansion). The unconstrained optimisation methods could be also
divided into two groups: methods involved with derivative (Steepest descent method,
FletcherReeves method, etc.) and methods without derivative (Powells method, Hooke
and Jeeves method, etc.).
To deal with constrained problems, the simplex technique is devised by George B. Dantzing in late 1940s for problems having linear objectives and constraints, which could be
in forms of equalities and inequalities. If the number of design variables is small, the
problem could be solved by drawing graphs. Otherwise, it can be solved in tableau form
or by a computer program.
For nonlinear constrained problems, the earliest development was the extension of simple minmax conditions by using the formulation of augmented Lagrangian multipliers,
which are based on variational methods. This leads to numerous difficulties in practical
applications as a result of nonlinear differential equation.
Kelly (1961) presented the cutting plane technique which can solve a problem having
linear objectives and nonlinear constraints. The algorithm of this technique involves solving a sequence of linear programming and nonlinear constraints, which are linearised by
using a Taylors series in the following form.
gj (x) gj (t) + gj (t)T (x t)
(2.2)
where t is an arbitrary point and x is a set of design variables. Then all functions are
linear and can be solved by linear programming (LP) per iteration.
20
To solve the problem of nonlinear objectives with a variety of types of constraints, Rosen
(1960) presented the gradient projection technique. Its main idea is choosing a feasible
starting point and moving to a better point based on the modified gradient of the objective function in the iterative scheme. The modified gradient is implemented by the
normalised search direction (Si ) as shown in the following equation:
Si =
Pi f (xi )
kPi f (xi )k
(2.3)
where Pi is the projection matrix. The new approximated point for iteration is related to
both Si and the vector of the Lagrangian multiplier.
Box (1965) extended the simplex technique of unconstrained minimisation to solve constrained minimisation problems by comparing the values of the objective function at the
(n+1) vertices (corners) of a general simplex and moving the simplex gradually towards
the optimum point during the iterative process. This technique firstly generates points
that individually satisfy the side constraints and then checks whether each point satisfies
all other constraints. It is noted that this technique is simple in computation and does
not require large computer storage as none of the derivatives are required. However, if
the feasible region is nonconvex, there is no guarantee of convergence.
From the benefit of using unconstrained optimisation techniques, which have simpler algorithms, the idea of transforming constrained problems to unconstrained ones has been
proposed. For simple problems, the intervals of design variables can be substituted into
objective functions to become unconstrained problems. For more complex problems, a
formulation called a penalty function is another way to transform the constrained problem.
21
Carroll (1961) set up the interior penalty function by the following formulation,
(x, rk ) = f (x) rk
m
X
1
j=1 gj (x)
(2.4)
where (rk ) is the penalty parameter. This technique produces subsequent points lying
inside the acceptable region of the design space.
Fiacco and McCormick (1967) presented a form of the exterior penalty function which is,
(x, rk , t) = f (x)
rk1
m
X
[gj (x) ti ]2
(2.5)
j=1
where t is nonnegative for a strictly decreasing penalty parameter (rk ). Unlike the interior penalty technique, this technique generates a nonfeasible sequence of unconstrained
minimum points that may yield a feasible solution. Its convergence starts from the infeasible region.
All techniques mentioned above are based on mathematical programming, which require
calculus or a relation between points in a design space. Because of this, some of them
are limited to a continuous design space. Moreover, all of them are almost assured of
locating the relative optimum closest to the starting points so that for a design space
having multiple optima as shown in Figure 2.5, they may provide the local optimum if
the starting point is far from the global one.
22
f(x)
Local minimum
Global minimum
23
mathematical programming techniques. It is easily implemented because it is only necessary to change the chromosome to solve other problems using the same basic algorithm.
However, it is difficult to encode design variables and to find the value of the fitness
function.
2.6
The optimisation formulations for the design of composite laminates lead to nonlinear
functions of the number of plies, lamina thickness and fibre orientation. Traditionally,
these design variables are defined as real numbers, which can be solved by gradientbased
techniques. Hirano (1979) used Powells technique (conjugate direct technique) to find
the optimum lamina fibre angle of laminated plates for maximum critical buckling stress,
which is based on a closed form solution. Schmit and Mehrinfar (1982) proposed multilevel optimum design of structures with fibrecomposite stiffened panel components, where
weight minimisation is the objective and local buckling displacement and strength are the
constraints. Inside the optimisation scheme, a sequence of unconstrained problems are
solved by a modified Newton technique. Soares et al. (1995) presented the two level
optimisation for thin shell composite structures. At the first level, which is defined as
an unconstrained problem, the DavidonFletcherPowell variable metric technique, that
minimises the displacement of the structures, is used to find the fibre direction of each
ply. At the second level where the problem is a constrained problem (minimising the
volume of material subject to constraints of maximum displacement of nodal points in
the FEA model, TsaiHill failure criterion and/or the natural frequency), the modified
feasible directions technique is employed. Again, Powells technique was used by Moh
and Hwu (1997) to design composite sandwich plates. The highest critical buckling load
is required which is controlled by the fibre orientations of the face laminas. Kim et al.
(1997) employed a gradient projection algorithm to find the optimum stacking sequence
24
of laminated plates with the design sensitivity information based on TsaiWu failure criteria. Walker et al. (1997) designed symmetrically laminated plates to obtain the minimum
deflection and weight by using the golden section technique based on the finite element
formulation with the TsaiWu criterion as a constraint. Bruyneel and Fleury (2002) introduced the approximation concept to solve the optimisation of composite structures when
both plies thickness and fibre orientations are considered as design variables to find the
highest stiffness structure. The papers mentioned above provide similar conclusions; the
classical optimisation techniques get trapped at local optima and the optimum fibre angle
is a real number, which is not suitable for manufacturing processes.
Recently, the evolutionary optimisations (SA or GA) are more popular in the design
of composite structures because they are based on random processes, which are used to
set the direction of better searching and they can store and use information from previous
results. Sciuva et al. (2003) used SA for multiconstrained optimisation of laminated and
sandwich plates. The maximum buckling load and minimum mass are the objectives and
transverse stiffness, mass and frequencies are the constraints. Fibre orientation is the design variable. Laminated plate theories are used for structural analysis. For this particular
problem, it has been concluded that SA provides better results than GA. However, there
is no other research to confirm that SA is better than GA or a test with both techniques in
other optimisation problems of composite structures. Moreover, the application of SA on
composite structural design is rare since GA is more popular than SA due to its simplicity.
Riche and Haftka (1993) presented the use of GA to optimise the stacking sequence of a
composite laminate for maximum buckling load, which is calculated from a closed form
solution subjected to strain failure constraints. Sivakumar et al. (1998) successfully applied GA and FEA related to FSDT to a laminate with an elliptical hole. Three examples
of applications are presented and their objectives are such as maximising fundamental
frequency, maximising first and second natural frequency, and weight minimisation. Constraints are a range of ply angle and major and minor axes of the ellipse. In the GA,
25
there is a possibility that the optimum point may not lie in the decoded values within
the chosen string. Hence care should be taken for deciding the string length such that
the variables are well distributed within the prescribed bounds. Park et al. (2001) used a
GA to find the optimal stacking sequence of laminated composites under various loading
and boundary conditions, optimised for maximum strength concerned with TsaiHill failure criterion. The plate stresses are calculated by FEA derived from FSDT. The design
variable is ply orientation. Muc and Gurba (2001) emphasis the excellent feature of a
GA in that it does not require any sensitivity analysis and therefore propose the use of
GA incorporated into a FEA package for the optimisation of composite structures with
regard to stacking sequence, shape and sizing. This could be applied to problems with unconstrained optimisation formulations. To find the optimum fibre orientation, maximum
buckling load is set as the objective. To find the optimum shape and sizing, maximum
strength of the structures in combination with an assumed failure criterion is the objective. Park et al. (2003) designed laminated plates to obtain the optimum fibre angle for
weight minimisation under stiffness and mould filling time requirements by using a GA
combined with a finite element calculation program (FEADLASP).
Only a few researchers have combined multiobjective design with GA. Walker and Smith
(2003) introduced the use of GAs together with a multiobjective approach and the FEM
for the design optimisation of symmetrically laminated plates to minimise both mass and
deflection. Costa et al. (2004) used a multiobjective GA to tackle the differentiable and
convex problem. The multipleobjectives were cost, mass, thickness and compliance of a
laminate plate. Structural analysis formulations were based on FEA. Deka et al. (2005)
firstly presented multiobjective optimisation of hybrid composite laminates by using GA
and FEA. The objectives of the problem were weight and cost which were given equal
importance. The design variable was the stacking sequence. Due to less research involving optimal design of laminated plates under various loads, Kim and Lee (2005) designed
symmetrically laminated composite plates under uniaxial compression, shear, biaxial and
a combination of shear and biaxial loading by GA to obtain the optimal stacking sequence,
26
which provided the maximum critical buckling load calculated from FEA based on CLPT.
Much research deals with the application of GAs to unstiffened laminate composites.
On the other hand, GA based optimisation concerned with stiffened plates is less common in the literature. Bisagni and Lanzi (2002) used a combination of a GA and neural
networks as optimisation tools and FEA for structural analysis to design composite plates
stiffened in one direction for minimum weight subjected to buckling load, collapse load
and the prebuckling stiffness. Kang and Kim (2005) designed unstiffened and unidirectionally stiffened composite plates by using GA with COSAP (nonlinear finite element
code) to obtain minimum weight under constrained post buckling strength.
Several studies have concentrated on improving the reliability and efficiency of GAs in
applications to optimise laminate structures. Nagendra et al. (1996) presented the investigations of the effect of various modifications (focus on GA operators) to basic GA for the
minimum weight design of stiffened panels subjected to stability and strain constraints.
The improved GA reduced the weight of the plates by about 4 %. Soremekun et al. (2001)
suggested incorporating a generalised elitism selection into a standard GA. The improved
GA is applied to two problems: buckling load maximisation of simply supported laminated plates and twist angle maximisation of cantileverlaminated plates. The fibre angle
is set as the design variable. Gantovik et al. (2002) introduced a suitable algorithm for
GAs with memory that can work with both discrete and continuous variables simultaneously and can be used for weight minimisation of laminated sandwich plates subjected to
strength and buckling constraints based on closed form solutions. The use of the memory
and spline approximation for a continuous variable avoids repeating analyses of previously
encountered designs. Rahul et al. (2005) employed the combination of GA with a parallel
computing environment (called IMPGA) and FEM for hybrid laminates under transverse
impact loading. Three types of optimisation problem have been considered namely cost
minimisation, weight minimisation and combined cost weight minimisation. The design
variables are ply angle, ply material and ply thickness. The parallel computation causes
27
2.7
Summary
According to the literature review of ship design in section 2.4, all optimisation methods
have considered only traditional structural materials of steel and aluminium. Optimisation of FRP structures has not been applied explicitly to ship structural topologies.
Optimisation methods have been reviewed from classical to modern methods as well as
their applications to composite structural design problems. The comparison of characteristics of some optimisation techniques is presented in Table 2.2. Moreover, the points
below can be drawn:
Classical methods such as Newtons method, Box method and so on are concerned
with the differentiation or relation between points in a design space. Their applications to composite structural design problems show that the optimum fibre angles
are real numbers which are unsuitable for manufacturing process because the typical fibre angle in layup process are such as 0 , 45 and 90 . Moreover, the global
optimum could not be obtained because classical optimization methods provide the
nearest point satisfying the optimum condition which is, for example, the slope at
the point equal to zero.
The composite structural design problem has a design space that may be nonlinear,
discontinuous and fluctuating. Hence, the use of stochastic optimisation methods is
more appropriate than that of classical methods because they rely on probabilistic
transition rules. Out of those, the most popular method is GA, which has been
successfully used by many researchers.
There are many papers involving the optimisation of unstiffened laminated plates
using GAs but few papers involved with the use of GA with stiffened plates. Moreover, few researchers have combined multiobjective design with GA.
Objective
Complex
linear
techniques
nonlinear
Constraint
Variables
Starting
Convergence
point
or
linear
or
continuous
feasible
by searching.
nonlinear in
equality but
ables
cannot
be
equality
SUMT
linear
(interior)
nonlinear
SQP
linear
or
linear
standard
nonlinear
GA+ Based
linear
derivative
nonlinear
method
linear
and
no
guarantee
problems
or
continuous
feasible
or
continuous
feasible
using derivative
nonlinear
or
nonlinear
GA
inefficient
linear
nonlinear
or
linear
or
nonlinear
or
linear
nonlinear
or
using derivative
or
or
infeasible
or
continuous
feasible
or discrete
infeasible
continuous
feasible
infeasible
28
Chapter 3
Review of structural solutions for
FRP composite plates
3.1
Introduction
3.2
29
(3.1)
30
x3
33
32
31
23
13
11
12
22
21
x2
x1
By the symmetric properties of materials Eq. 3.1 can be written in the form of tensor notation as,
3
4
5
6
Q11
Sym.
Q66
3
4
5
6
(3.2)
31
Stresses
notations Tensor notations New
1
11
2
22
3
33
4
23 = 23
5
13 = 13
6
12 = 12
notations
1
2
3
4
5
6
In the case of a twodimensional space (for example, this is the assumption for the analysis
of thin plates) all the terms related to the x3 axis in the previous equations can be
neglected; the stressstrain relations can be simplified as follows:
1
2
6
Q11 Q12
Q12 Q22
0
0 1
(3.3)
0
2
Q66
6
1
2
6
1
E11
Ev12
11
0
Ev12
11
0 1
1
E22
0
2
1
6
G12
(3.4)
where Eij and vij are Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio respectively. Thus, by inverting
Eq.3.4 and then comparing with Eq. 3.3, the compliance tensors can be expressed as,
E11
,
(1 v12 E22 /E11 )
E22
=
,
(1 v12 E22 /E11 )
Q11 =
Q22
Q12 =
v12 E12
(1 v12 E22 /E11 )
Q66 = G12
(3.5)
(3.6)
To transform stresses from global axes (xy plane) to local axes (LT plane) Figure 3.2,
the relations of stresses related to these axes can be explained as follows.
32
xy
Figure 3.2: An orthotropic lamina with its principal material axes arbitrary orientated
with respect to reference coordinate axes
The equilibrium equation for L, T and LTdirections are presented as,
L = x cos2 + y sin2 + xy (2sincos)
(3.7)
(3.8)
(3.9)
LT
[T ]
xy
[T ] =
cos
2
sin
sin
2
cos
2sincos
2sincos
(3.10)
33
2 LT
[T ]
x
y
2 xy
(3.11)
x
y
xy
[T ]1
Q11 Q12
Q12 Q22
0
0
0
2Q66
[T ]
x
y
2 xy
[Q]
2 xy
(3.12)
is called the transform reduced stiffness matrix which plays an important role in
The [Q]
the derivation of equivalent single layer theories. Finally it is noted that [T ] is important
in assessing the failure of unidirectional lamina when the fibre orientation differs from the
loading direction.
3.3
3.3.1
In ship structures, beams are the stiffening members for the plating which is required to
provide watertight integrity. Those beams are usually placed longitudinally and transversely forming a mesh which intersects orthogonally. The network of these beams is
called a grillage as defined by Clarkson (1965). Two methods exist, both based on beam
theory, that can be used to find the mechanical response of the grillage. These are the
displacement method (DM) and the force method (F M).
The displacement method, Clarkson (1965), is the most common method used for grillage
analysis. It relies on straight segments of beams between the intersection points which
are analysed in terms of deflections and slopes at the intersection points.
34
In the Force method, the pressure loads acting normal to the plates are represented by
loads acting at the grillage intersection points. At each intersection point an equilibrium
condition is applied and the deflection is calculated by using beam theory in terms of the
reaction forces. Hence, it provides an exact solution for steel grillages. Lazarides (1952)
introduced the calculation procedure of FM to a square grillage by ignoring torsion of
beams. This calculation procedure, used by Clarkson (1963), provided solutions which
agree well with experimental data.
Since the number of equations increases when the number of interactions increases, finding
the mechanical solutions of a grillage having a large number of beams requires a computer
based solution. Smith (1964) developed a computer program to analyse the grillages with
up to 25 intersections or up to 100 intersections where two axes of symmetry are present.
More recently, Jang et al. (1996) employed FM by ignoring torsional rigidity of beams
within their optimisation process of a surface effect ship built from aluminum. The complex structures due to longitudinal girder and transverse web frames are represented as a
number of grillages. To find the reaction force (Fk ) at the ith intersection, the following
equation needs to be solved.
(eik + dik )Fk = vi
(3.13)
where vi is the deflection of the web frame at the ith intersection when only uniform load
is applied and eik and dik are influence coefficients for the girder and beam respectively
which are derived from Timoshenko beam theory.
Cheung et al. (1982) applied grillage analysis based on the displacement method to
multispine boxgirder bridges to find the longitudinal bending moment and transverse
shear. The results of this method agree well with a 3D analysis using the finite strip
method. The method is used by Evan et al. (1983) to take into account the effects
of shear as well as bending upon the nonlinear and collapse behaviour of multicellular
structures under lateral loading. This method can be used not only for static analysis
but also dynamic analysis. Balendra and Shanmugam (1985) analysed free vibration of
35
plate structures such as plates, stiffened plates and cellular structures using the grillage
method. It is concluded that reasonably good results can be obtained by comparision
with FEM results. Moreover, the grillage method could be applied for sandwich panels.
For instance, Tan and Montage (1991) converted the panels into an analogous 2D grillage
of orthogonallyorientated beams.
To avoid solving a large number of equations, Vedeler (1945) used the grillage analysis of the energy method based on Naviers solution in which the deflection of the grillage
is determined by equating the total strain energy of all beams to work done by a normal
load so that only one equation needs to be solved for deflection (w) at every intersection.
For a grillage made of isotropic material, the deflection can be obtained as,
w=
m=1 n=1
fmn sin
mx
ny
sin
L
B
(3.14)
16qLB
1
i
h
I
6
g
mnE m4 (g + 1) 3 + n4 (b + 1) I3b
l
b
(3.15)
where E is Youngs Modulus of the building material, g and b are the number of girders
and beams respectively, m and n are the wave number of a double sine series, Ig and
Ib are the second moment of area of girder and beam respectively and L and B are the
length and width of the grillage structure respectively.
For stiffened plates made of composite materials, Smith (1990) explained that composite
beam theory is applicable to a plate stiffened in one direction only under the assumption that the plane section on the panel is to remain a plane section when subjected to
bending moments and the Poissons ratio effect is negligible. The cross section is divided
up into a number of N elements related to the reference axes. When the cross section
is symmetrical and bending (Mv ) is confined to one plane, the bending stress at the ith
36
Ei Mv zi
Dv
(3.16)
where Dv is the flexural rigidity of the section and zi is the distance from neutral axis to
the ith element.
3.3.2
The Classical Plate equation (see Eq.3.17) for unstiffened plates made of isotropic material
subjected to a lateral load, explained by Timoshenko (1959), is derived from a combination
of four distinct subsets of plate theory: the kinematic (straindisplacement relation),
constitutive (Hookes Law), force resultant, and equilibrium equations.
D
4w
4w
4w
+
2D
+
D
=q
x4
x2 y 2
y 4
(3.17)
where q is the distributed normal pressure load per area, w is the displacement along the
zaxis, D = Eh3 /12(1 v 2 ), h is the plate thickness and v is the Poissons ratio of the
plate material.
For a plate made of material which has three planes of symmetry with respect to its
elastic properties, the plate equation in the case of plane stress known as the orthotropic
plate equation is derived in the same fashion as in the case of a plate built of isotropic
material and results in the following equation,
Dx
4w
4w
4w
+
2H
+
D
=q
y
x4
x2 y 2
y 4
(3.18)
Between Eq.3.17 and Eq.3.18, the clear differences are the flexural rigidity terms which in
Eq.3.18, are Dx = Ex h3 /12(1vx vy ), Dy = Ey h3 /12(1vx vy ) and H = vx Dy +2Gxy h3 /12
where Gxy is the shear modulus in the xyplane. For a stiffened plate made of isotropic
material, after the stiffeners are smeared out by adding the equivalent stiffness into the
base plate, the properties of the base plate become orthotropic so that the orthotropic
37
plate equation can be applied by adding the effect of the stiffener into the flexural rigidity
terms. Huffington and Blacksburg (1956) presented a theoretical determination of rigidity
properties of orthogonally stiffened plates in terms of the elastic constants and geometrical configuration of component parts of the structures. For instance, Dx = D + EI/s,
where I is the moment of inertia of the stiffener and s is the stiffener spacing. The results
of these evaluations did agree well with experimental data.
However, Bedair (1997) discussed this method for stiffened plates, called the orthotropic
plate method (OPM), noting that it could be justified if the stiffeners are closely spaced
but poses difficulties in derivation if the stiffeners are not equally spaced. Moreover,
this method has been used by Cheung at al. (1982) to find the longitudinal moments and
transverse shear of multispine boxgirder bridges. A comparison with a 3D analysis using
the finitestrip method concluded that the OPM provides accurate results if the number
of spines is not less than three.
The application examples of this method are shown as follows. Mikami and Yonezawa
(1983) regarded transversely stiffened web plates as an othotropic rectangular plate with
variable rigidities for predicting the ultimate static strength of plate girders under bending. Krisek et al. (1990) used OPM based on harmonic analysis for shear lag analysis
of a steel and composite singlecell box girder. Mikami and Niwa (1996) presented an
approximate formulation based on OPM to predict ultimate strength for orthogonally
stiffened steel plates subjected to uniaxial compression. The analysis of the results shows
good agreement with many test results. Hosseini et al. (2005) proposed an approximate
method which is related to the closed form solution of a rectangular orthotropic plate for
bladestiffened panels to estimate its critical buckling load in the preliminary design stage
of structures.
In the case of the plate built of composite material, the effect of stiffeners is added into
38
the flexural rigidities of the base plate which are represented by Smith (1990) as follows:
D11 = Dx + (Dsx + Asx e2x )/b,
D22 = Dy + (Dsy + Asy e2y )/a,
D12 = vy Dx
Gxy h3 1 DT x DT y
D66 =
+
+
12
2
b
a
(3.19)
(3.20)
where Asx and Asy are axial rigidities of longitudinal and transverse stiffeners, Dsx and
Dsy are the flexural rigidities of the stiffeners about their centroids, DT x and DT y are
the stiffener torsional rigidities, a and b are the spacings of transverse (ydirection) and
longitudinal (xdirection) stiffeners respectively and ex and ey are the distances from the
midplane of the plating to the centroids of the stiffeners.
The orthotropic equation used for the plate under lateral load (q) is written as:
D11
4w
4w
4w
+
2(D
+
2D
)
+
D
=q
12
66
22
x4
x2 y 2
y 4
(3.21)
Similarly, this method can be adapted and applied to corrugated panels made of composite
materials as can be seen in Smith and Clarke (1986).
3.3.3
The analytical method of the stiffened plate, based on both beam and plate theory,
is the Folded Plate Method (FPM). Without the grillage assumption, the method can
provide a refined solution of the plate. Smith (1966) described the application of the
FPM to the steel plate stiffened in one direction under lateral loading and subjected to
a simply supported condition at one pair of opposite sides. The plate is represented by
an array of beams and interconnected flat rectangular plates. As each beam is simply
supported at its ends, the deflection shape can be represented by Fourier series and then
forces and moments can be derived according to simple beam theory. Plate elements are
assumed to satisfy the isotropic plate equation. Then continuity conditions are defined
along the interconnecting boundaries between plates and beams, followed by applying an
equilibrium condition on the beam element. From this, the matrix equation (Eq. 3.22)
39
(3.22)
It has been concluded that the FPM is limited to structures consisting of flat rectangular panels simply supported at one pair of opposite sides and stiffened in one direction
only (for orthogonally stiffened plates, the transverse stiffeners are smeared out by adding
the stiffness properties into the plate element), a direct solution of the plate equations
may be obtained without difficulty. This conclusion is confirmed by bridge design code
(CHBDC 2000) which restricts the use of this method to bridges with support conditions
closely equivalent to line supports at both ends of the bridge.
The method is computationally expensive and complicated when the number of elements
increases because one beam element contains four equilibrium equations so that for the
whole plate, the beam displacement can be obtained by solving 4nB equations where
nB is the number of longitudinal beams. Because of this, Smith C.S. (1972) developed
approximate formulas and data curves for evaluating the instability of flat panels with
tophat frames and referred to the foldedplate method as the refinement structural analysis method for typical FRP structures. A computer program was developed based on
the folded plate analysis by March and Taylor (1990) to analyse box girder bridges, which
can be disassembled as orthotropic or isotropic plates.
In the case of a composite plate, Smith (1990) showed that the derivation procedures
are the same as those of the plate built of isotropic materials. The difference is that
rather than using simple beam theory for a beam element, composite beam theory is used
instead. Similarly, orthotropic plate theory is applied for the plate element of the plate
40
3.4
The unstiffened plate in composite ship structures could be laminated plates or sandwich plates. The mechanical response of these plates can be solved by laminated plate
theories which could be reviewed as follows. Laminated plate can be solved by 3D elasticity theory, layerwise theory or equivalent singlelayer theories (ESL). 3D elasticity
theory (3DT) provides exact solutions because each layer is treated as a homogeneous
anisotropic material. From the equations of motion which balance all forces existing on
each layer as shown in Pagano (1969), the 3DT results in 3N governing differential equations, N being the number of layers. This leads to high computational expense when the
number of layers increases. The complexity of the derivation increases due to continuity of the displacements and stresses at the interface of every layer. Therefore, solutions
of this theory for an arbitrary laminate with various edge conditions are difficult to obtain.
Equivalent single layer theories (ESL) are derived from the 3D elasticity theory by making
suitable assumptions concerning the kinematics of deformation or the stress state through
the thickness of the laminate, Reddy (1997). ESL theories treats a heterogeneous plate
as a statically equivalent single layer having a complex constitutive behaviour. Examples
of ESL are Classical laminated plate theory (CLPT), First order shear deformation theory (FSDT) and Higherorder shear deformation theory (HSDT). For all theories of ESL,
generally the derivation procedure is the same and can be shown in the following diagram
(see Figure 3.3),
41
Displacement field
Equilibrium equations
u = u0 (x, y) z
(3.23)
(3.24)
(3.25)
According to this displacement field, CLPT is the simplest theory and is widely used for
gross analysis of laminated structures. Pagano (1969) applied this theory to laminated
plates and found that its solutions deteriorated when the spantodepth ratio is reduced.
This theory provides accurate solutions only for thin plates where small transverse shear
effects occur. Moreover, Leung et al. (2003) stated that due to this assumption, CLPT
is restricted to plates whose elastic to shear modulus ratios are not very large. This theory underestimates deflections and overestimates vibration frequencies and buckling loads.
42
(3.26)
v = v0 (x, y) + zy (x, y)
(3.27)
w = w0 (x, y)
(3.28)
Within the derivation procedure, the shear resultant terms (QX and QY ), which do not
exist in CLPT, appear and have an influence on the accuracy of this theory. These terms
are presented by Whitney and Pagano (1970) as follows,
QX
QY
=K
A44 A45
w,x + x
(3.29)
In a subsequent paper, Whitney and Pagano (1970) reformulated Eq. 3.29 as,
QX
QY
k12 A45
k1 k2 A44
k1 k2 A55 w,y + y
k22 A45
w,x + x
(3.30)
The difference between the two is in the use of only one shear correction factor (K) in
Eq 3.29 and two shear correction factors (k1 , k2 ) in Eq. 3.30. However, both of these
representations show good agreement with exact solutions. For composite laminates, the
shear correction factors are difficult to determine because they rely on a number of different parameters such as the properties of each ply, stacking sequence and structural
geometries. Generally, the evaluation of those shear factors are related to exact elasticity
solutions or empirical data.
To overcome some of the disadvantages of linear theories (CLPT and FSDT), the Higher
43
order shear deformation theories (HSDT) were introduced that assume the through thickness distributions of the displacement functions to be higher order polynomials of the
thickness coordinate. The HSDT having thirdorder is often found in the literature because singlelayer theories of more than thirdorder are cumbersome and the increase in
accuracy is outweighed by the increase in the number of unknowns as can been seen
in Liu and Li (1996). Lo et al. (1977) introduce a third order shear deformation theory (TSDT) to account for transverse shear deformation effects, transverse normal strain
and a nonlinear distribution of inplane displacements through the plate thickness. The
displacement field of this theory is presented as,
u = u0 (x, y) + zx (x, y) + z 2 x (x, y) + z 3 x (x, y)
(3.31)
(3.32)
(3.33)
Compared to linear theories, it is noted that additional unknowns are introduced into the
displacement field. However, this theory does not require shear correction factors. Reddy
(1984) replaced the displacement in the zaxis in Eq. 3.33 by w = w0 (x, y) or considering
only direct extension in the zaxis. This results in the same number of dependent unknown variables as in the FSDT in Whitney and Pagano (1970). By applying the HSDT
to many laminated plates, it can be concluded that HSDT are of considerable interest
in the analysis of laminated composite plates because an accurate prediction of interlaminar shear stresses enables an accurate determination of strength and failure of a laminate.
For laminates made of dissimilar material layers, CLPT, FSDT and HSDT cannot present
the zigzag distribution of inplane displacements through the laminate thickness and they
provide erroneous double valued interlaminate stresses on the laminate interface because
those theories represent inplane displacement components by continuous functions. To
overcome these drawbacks, the layerwise theories (LWT) are introduced based on a layer
44
assembly system describing each composite laminate as an assembly of individual layers. For piecewise approximation of the inplane deformation through individual lamina,
Barbero et al. (1990) expressed the displacement field as,
ui (x, y, z) = ui (x, y) +
Ni
X
(3.34)
j=1
u3 (x, y, z) = w(x, y, z)
(3.35)
To improve the accuracy of LWT, a combination of the ideas of LWT, FSDT and HSDT
are presented such as Toledo and Murakami (1986) for first order zigzag theory and
Aitharaju and Averill (1999) for higherorder zigzag theory. Although LWT provide a
solution which is very close to the exact solution, they suffer from a numerical crisis if the
layer number becomes too large because, as can be noted from their displacement field,
the number of layers are related to the number of unknown variables.
3.5
The analytical solution is difficult to calculate for some structural problems for complex
structures so numerical methods providing approximate solutions are more appropriate.
The well known numerical methods for structural problems are the Finite Strip Method
(FSM), the Finite Difference Method (FDM) and the Finite Element Method (FEM).
Finite Strip Method (FSM) is regarded as a special form of the displacement formulation of
FEM. FSM uses the minimum total potential energy theorem to develop the relationship
between unknown nodal displacement parameters and the applied load. Yoda and Atluri
(1992) investigated the post buckling of stiffened laminated composite panels by using
FSM based on higher order shear deformation theory. Its results are validated with some
typical experimental results. Dawe et al. (1993) described the use of FSM for the analysis of the geometrically nonlinear elastic response of composite laminated, orthotropic
prismatic plate structures subjected to progressive uniformed shortening. Loughlan and
45
Delaunoy (1993) studied the buckling characteristics of composite stiffened plates under inplane shear load using the method. Two bead stiffened panels under combined
compressive and shear load were also analysed by Dawe and Peshkam (1996) using this
method. As the FSM is a popular method for analysing thinwalled prismatic plates, it
is used by Loughlan (1996) to investigate the buckling characteristics of some carbon fibre composite stiffened box sections subjected to compressive and bending loading action.
Wang and Dawe (1996) developed the FSM in the contexts of both firstorder shear deformation and classical plate theories for an analysis of the overall, geometrically nonlinear,
elastic behaviour of diaphragm supported prismatic plate structures which may be made
of composite laminated material and may have initial geometric imperfections. Yuan and
Dawe (2004) described the development of a Bspline finite strip method for predicting the
natural frequencies of vibration and the buckling stresses of rectangular sandwich panels.
Razzaq and EIZafrany (2005) reduced the dimensionality of FEM by applying a new
concept to FSM. Mindlins platebending theory, Mindlin (1951), has been employed for
the derivation of an efficient element. The developed program is applied for trapezoidal
and stiffened plate and cylindrical shells made of isotropic or composite layered materials.
Finite Difference Method (FDM) finds solutions based on a system of difference equations. Within this method, finite difference plays an important role, they are one of the
simplest ways of approximating a differential operator and they are extensively used in
solving differential equations. At the present time, the FDM is rarely found in the literature concerned with structural analysis. Aksu and Ali (1976) employed the FDM to
analyse the free vibration of rectangular stiffened plates having a single stiffener. Turvey and Der Avanessian (1985) presented the governing equations for the axisysmmetric
elastic large defection analysis of ring stiffened plates and a graded finite difference implementation of dynamic relaxation was used for their numerical solutions. Mukhopadhyay
(1989a,b) used a semianalytic FDM on a stiffened plate with various boundary conditions
for vibration and stability analysis. The results of this method indicated good agreement
with previously published results.
46
To overcome the disadvantages of the Finite Difference Method (FDM) such as the difficulty in applying boundary conditions and the fact that they are not suitable for complex
structures, the use of the Finite Element Method (FEM) is proposed. The FEM is a
numerical method for the solution of boundaryvalue problems. This method can be regarded as an extension of earlier established analytical techniques in which a structure
is represented as an assemblage of discrete elements interconnected at a finite number of
nodal points. There are plenty of papers dealing with this method as much commercial
software based on the FEM is available and it is known as the universal tool for structural analysis. Herein, the papers involved with the application and development of this
method is presented. Chattopadhyay et al. (1992) used the FEM with an isoparametric quadratic plate bending element for free vibration of composite stiffened plates. In
the present formulation, stiffeners can be placed anywhere within the plate element and
they need not necessarily follow nodal lines. Chattopadhyay et al. (1993) employed the
FEM with the eightnode isoparametric quadratic platebending element, which includes
transverse shear deformation for the analysis of beadstiffened composite plates under
transverse loads. Again, the developed FEM is used by Chattopadhyay et al. (1995) for
the large deflection analysis of the plates. The free vibration of stiffened composite laminates using the FEM is presented by Guo and Harik (1996). Harik et al. (1997) developed
a finite element model for the problem of stiffened laminates in bending problem. The
element layer and the stiffeners are modelled using degenerated shell elements and 3D
beam elements respectively. This model can be used for both thin and thick plates. The
response of multidegree linear elastic structures subjected to stationary random stochastic loading obtained from the FEM is described by Goswami (1997). Rao (2000) used
the method to capture the behaviour of plain/stiffened plates and shell structures, which
are typical structures used in the aerospace industry. Concentrically and eccentrically
stiffened laminated plates have been analysed by Sadek et al. (2000) using a FEM based
on a refined higher order displacement model. The plate element used is a ninenode
isoparametric one with seven degrees of freedom at each node. The stiffener element
47
is a threenode isoparametric beam element with four degrees of freedom at each node.
HosseiniToudeshky et al. (2005) used the FEM for buckling analyses of bead stiffened
composite panels with different bead spacing, bead depth, bead radii and panel lengths.
Wang et al. (2005) also used this method to examine the influence of manufacturing induced thermal residual stress on the optimal shape of stiffeners in stiffened symmetrically
laminated plates.
3.6
Summary
In the earlier sections, the reviews on structural analytical methods of plates and numerical methods have been undertaken to build the methodology for the design of composite
ship structures.
According to the review of structural analytical methods for stiffened plate, the following
points could be concluded:
If a plate is represented as a plated grillage, in the case of isotropic material the
Force Method (FM) can provide exact solutions. However, a high computational
time is inevitable when the number of beam intersection is high. This does not
cause any problem when using the Energy Method (EM) because it is necessary
to solve only one equation within the solver stage. Moreover, the Energy Method
(EM) has the benefit of the simplicity of onedimensional calculation. For instance,
the stresses are calculated from simple beam theory.
For stiffened plates made of isotropic material, Orthotropic Plate Method (OPM)
is popular due to its simplicity. Nevertheless, it is not easy to obtain stress results
because stiffeners are smeared out. Orthotropic Plate Method (OPM) is justified
only when stiffeners are closely spaced.
The Folded Plate Method (FPM) is a further refinement that requires less assumptions about the stiffened plate. However, its application is limited to plates stiffened
48
in only one direction and subjected to simply supported conditions at one pair of
opposite sides.
For unstiffened plates (laminate), the review of analytical methods can be summarised as
follows.
3D elasticity theory provides the exact solutions but it is complicated to apply
for laminates having a large number of layers, which leads to a large number of
unknown parameters. Layerwise theory, which provides the solution closest to the
exact solution, has the same problem as 3D elasticity theory.
Out of the Equivalent single layer (ESL) theories, Classical Laminated Plate Theory
(CLPT) is the simplest due to Kirchhoffs hypothesis. It is widely used for gross
analysis of laminated structures and provides an accurate solution for thin plates
where small transverse shear effects can be neglected. CLPT is unique but the First
Order Shear Deformation Theory (FSDT) and Higher Order Shear Deformation
Theory (HSDT) are not because FSDT can be presented in a different form of shear
correction factors and HSDT can be presented in a different form of truncation
terms.
As a result of introducing firstorder shear deformation terms in the displacement
field, First Order Shear Deformation Theory (FSDT) provides a better solution than
Classical Laminated Plate Theory (CLPT). However, the shear correction factor (K)
is not easily determined.
Based on the literature review of numerical methods, the following conclusions can be
drawn.
Since the Finite Strip Method (FSM) is the direct application of the theory of
elasticity to determine the stiffness matrix of folded plate elements, FSM requires
the least computational time among numerical methods. FSM can provide detailed
models that can capture interactions between the shell and stiffeners. The model
can be varied in geometry. However, although the Finite Strip Method (FSM)
49
Chapter 4
Methodology
4.1
Introduction
In accordance with the aim of this work (to introduce a methodology for the initial design
of a composite ship structure), the former chapters have presented a review of optimisation
techniques and ship structural analysis. The outcome of this review has resulted in the
development of the methodology presented below.
4.2
Methodology adopted
The methodology (herein referring to the optimisation framework) adopted for a composite ship structural design is a combination of GA and structural analytical methods of
composite plates. The framework is used for the initial composite ship structural design
stage where the optimum results of scantlings should be obtained as quickly as possible.
Hence, rather than using a numerical method for finding structural analysis solutions,
simplified methods are employed.
In the Energy method (EM) based on Navier solutions, the grillage is represented by a
stiffened plate because this way only one governing equation needs to be solved although
the design variables are varied. The EM was originally developed for a steel grillage so
50
Chapter 4. Methodology
51
that the equivalent elastic properties of symmetric unidirectional laminate are included
into its derivation. In the case of an unstiffened plate (laminate plate), higher order shear
deformation theory (HSDT) is chosen because it can provide accurate solutions to problems ranging from thin to moderately thick plate.
Since the design problem of a composite ship may be characterized as nonlinear of high
order, discrete and fluctuant, the GA is selected as the optimization tool. It will be proved
in a later section that the GA works on problems of this nature.
4.3
As described in Figure 4.1, the framework is divided into two parts: GA searching procedure (label 15) and evaluation part (label 619). Remembering that GA follows the
principles of natural evolution and selection in the context of engineering. Each design is
different from each other in some subtle but quantified way (for example, different number of layers in the plates, different fibre orientation etc.). These design variants are then
bred together to produce offspring which are compared against each other in terms
of the most suitable at fulfilling some design criteria. To this end and refering the reader
to Figure 4.1, the following description is presented.
Firstly, the input data, such as GA parameters, the maximum generation, types of GA
operators and so on (the processes and terminology associated with natural evolution
in the context of engineering are described in Chapter 5), are supplied by the designer
in stage 1. The binary representation of design variables is decoded in stage 6 and the
design variables of the composite compounds are transferred to the composite properties
evaluation module where E1 , E2 , v12 , G12 and strength properties are calculated.
The material properties and geometric information (e.g. stiffener spacing, plate dimension and so on) are used for the evaluation of objectives and constraints in stages 8 and
9. The objective and constraints are then converted into objective functions in stages
Chapter 4. Methodology
52
1114. This work deals only with single objective functions, however multiple objective
functions could be dealt with in this framework. Any of the four parameters, weight,
stiffness, strength or stability could be either an objective or a constraint.
The structural analysis modules are divided into two paths: stiffened plates (Grillage
Analysis) and unstiffened plate (HSDT). The fitness of each individual is then the fitness
evaluated in stage 10. If an individual satisfies all the constraints its fitness value is set
equal to the normalized value of its objective function. If not, its fitness value is set to
zero and it is thereby eliminated from the population. The results are then fed back to
the GA searching stage which runs exploiting and exploring operators. This terminates
when a maximum is achieved.
Since the aim of this section is to present a general description of the optimization framework following Figure 4.1, it has been seen that there are many aspects which may be
new for readers. Hence, more explanations will be given in Chapter 5, which is concerned
with the grillage analysis, HSDT, optimization procedure (GA) and weight function. The
individual module of this framework is validated and tested in Chapter 6. Finally, the applications of this framework to stiffened and unstiffened plates are performed in Chapter
7 and 8 respectively.
Chapter 4. Methodology
53
(11) weight
(1) Input data,
Initial population
(6) Decode
Structural analysis
(12) Stiffness
(2) Evaluation
(7) Composite
properties
(13) Strength
(3) Exploiting
operators
(4) Exploring
operators
(5) Optimum
solutions
GA
(8)Objective
(9) Constraints
(10) Fitness
(14) Stability
(15) Stiffened
plate
(17) Grillage
Analysis
Evaluation
(16)Unstiffened
plate
(18) HSDT
Chapter 5
Structural analysis and Optimisation
procedure
5.1
Introduction
In the previous chapter, the optimisation framework for composite ship structures was
proposed. This broadly consists of a structural analysis and an optimisation procedure.
In this chapter, firstly the grillage analysis method adopted for composite plate grillages is
introduced and the Higher Order Shear Deformation Theory (HSDT) used for unstiffened
plates is described. Next, Genetic Algorithm (GA), one of the stochastic search methods
which mimics the laws of natural evolution, is explained. Finally, an example of binary
representation and objective formulation is given.
5.2
Grillage analysis
The analysis of grillages based on Naviers Method and found in Vedeler (1945), originally developed for a structure built of isotropic material, is adapted for composite plated
grillages by substituting equivalent elastic properties of a symmetric laminate into the
grillage analysis. Consider the grillage (see Figure. 5.1) consisting of b equally spaced
beams in the length (L) direction and g equally spaced girders in the width (B) direction.
54
55
x
(a)
y
Beams
x
(b)
y
girders
Figure 5.1: (a) Tophat cross stiffened plate and (b) Grillage representation for the stiffened
plate
Since the structures are made of laminated composite, the tophat cross section could
be comprised of many elements having different elastic properties. For example, the web,
crown, base plate and core are elements of the tophat section. To represent the tophat
cross stiffened plates, girders and beams of the grillage have tophat shape including base
plate (See Figure 5.2). The width of base plate element is represented by the effective
width. The effective width is introduced to make the calculated maximum stress from the
simple beam formula to be the same as that obtained from an elastic solution in which
56
Crown
y
(a)
z
Core
N.A.
y
W eb
z
Base plate
t
n cg
Tcg =
ag
cg ( i )
i =1
(b)
hg
t
nwg
nbp
Tbp =
Twg =
t bp ( i )
i =1
wg(i)
i=1
Girder spacing
ab
Tcb =
n cb
cb ( i )
i =1
hb
(c)
Twb =
n wb
i =1
t wb (i )
Beam spacing
Figure 5.2: (a) Tophat cross section of girders and beams with the local coordinate for
fibre layup (b) Geometric parameters of girders and (c) Geometric parameters of beams
the plate action of the flange is recognized. For a stiffened plate built of steel, the effective
width is about 20% of girder or beam spacing. This is determined by the experiment.
To avoid the section coupling problem (bending is caused by an axial load), the geometry
of the cross section must be symmetric. Each laminated element is assumed to be symmetric about its own plane and specially orthotropic in the membrane mode to eliminate
the effect of the coupling terms [B] and shear coupling A16 , A26 . From Datoo (1991), the
membrane equivalent Youngs modulus value of a laminate in the axial direction of the
57
(5.1)
N
X
ij )k
tk (Q
(5.2)
k=1
(5.3)
(5.4)
(5.5)
c and s are abbreviations for cos and sin and is the fibre angle in each ply. The
reduced stiffness terms (Qij ) where i, j = 1, 2, 6 are expressed as:
Q11 =
E1
E2
v21 E1
, Q22 =
, Q12 =
, Q66 = G12
(1 v12 v21 )
(1 v12 v21 )
(1 v12 v21 )
(5.6)
If the cross section of girders and beams is Ng and Nb elements respectively, the combined
flexural rigidity of girders (Dg ) and beams (Db ) can be written as:
Dg =
Ng
X
i=1
Eg(i) Ig(i) ,
Db =
Nb
X
Eb(i) Ib(i)
(5.7)
i=1
Eg(i) and Eb(i) are the membrane equivalent Youngs moduli in axial direction of the ith
element of girders and beams respectively. Ig(i) and Ib(i) are the second moments of area
of the ith element relative to Neutral Axis (N.A.) of the girder and beams cross sections
respectively. The general form of Ig(i) , Ib(i) can be presented by I(i) as follows:
I(i) = Icx(i) + a(i) (dna(i) )2
(5.8)
58
The deflection (w) at any point on the grillage is expressed by the following double
summation of trigonometric series called the Navier solution.
X
w(x, y) =
amn sin
m=1 n=1
mx
ny
sin
L
B
(5.9)
m and n are wave numbers and amn are coefficients which can be determined by the
condition that the change in potential energy due to the assumed deflections is a minimum.
The deflection curve of the q th beam is obtained by giving x the constant value xq =
ny
,
B
n=1
X
mq
=
amn sin
(b + 1)
m=1
(w)x=xq =
bqn
bqn sin
qL
.
(b+1)
(5.10)
Similarly, the deflection curve of the pth girder is obtained by giving y the constant value
yp =
pB
.
(g+1)
mx
,
L
m=1
X
np
=
amn sin
(g + 1)
n=1
(w)y=yp =
cpn
cpn sin
(5.11)
The total strain energy for all girders and beams can be represented as:
V =
+
Z
Z
L
0
Dg
2
2w
x2
Db
2
2w
y 2
!2
y=yp
!2
dx
(5.12)
dy
x=xq
m=1 n=1
amn sin
mx
ny
sin
dxdy
L
B
(5.13)
59
(5.14)
g
4 Dg X
np
4P LB
4
m
c
sin
=
pn
2L3 p=1
(g + 1)
2 mn
where m and n are odd numbers. Now, the coefficient amn can be obtained as,
amn =
16P LB
6 mn
m4 (g
Db
g
+ n4 (b + 1) B
+ 1) D
3
L3
(5.15)
Hence, the complete expression for the deflection of the tophat stiffened plate can be found
by substituting Eq. 5.15 into the double sine series in Eq. 5.9. The bending moment and
shear force of the pth girder can be obtained by,
Mg = Dg
Mg
2w
, Qg =
2
x
x
(5.16)
The direct stress in the axial direction and shear stress at each element on the girder cross
section are given by the following expressions,
Eg(i) Mg Zg
Eg(i) Qg Z s
g =
, g =
Zg ds
Dg
Dg
0
(5.17)
Where Zg is the distance from the neutral axis of the girder to the ith element and s is
the distance around the cross section from the middle of the crown element to a point at
which we wish to know the shear. Similar to Eq. 5.16 and Eq. 5.17, the direct stress (b )
and shear stress (b ) of the beam can be obtained.
5.3
The HSDT used in this work is based on the thirdorder shear deformation plate theories
(TSDT) which were developed by Reddy (1997). It is a good compromise between accuracy and computational efficiency. The assumptions of this theory are almost the same
60
as the CLPT and FSDT except that the assumption on the straightness and normality of
a transverse normal after deformation is relaxed by expanding the displacements as cubic
functions of the thickness coordinate.
N0
xx
N0
yy
N0
yy
x
N0
xx
Figure 5.3: The coordinate system of a rectangular laminated plate of thickness (t)
xx = N 0 , N
yy = N 0 )
subjected to inplane compressive edge forces (N
xx
yy
Related to Figure 5.3, the displacement field of TSDT can be presented as,
u(x, y, z) = u0 (x, y) + zx (x, y) c1 z
w(x, y) = wo (x, y)
w0
x + c0
x
(5.18)
w0
y + c0
y
(5.19)
(5.20)
61
where c1 and c0 are parameters introduced for the HSDT assumption. x and y denote
rotations about the x and y axes.
By substituting the above displacement field into the nonlinear strain displacement relations, the following straindisplacements are obtained,
xx
yy
xy
u0
x
v0
y
u0
y
1
2
1
2
v0
x
yz y +
=
x +
xz
w0
x
+z
w0
x
w0
y
w0
x
2
2
w0 w0
x y
+z
x
y
x
c1
+
x
y
c1
+
y
y
x
c1
+
y
x
2
+z
x
x
y
y
y
x
2 w0
x2
2 w0
y 2
w0
+ 2 xy
c2 y +
c2 x +
w0
y
w0
x
(5.21)
(5.22)
where c2 = 3c1 and it is assumed that c0 = 1. Since the transverse stresses are assumed
to vanish at the bottom and top of the laminate, it can be known that c2 = 4/h2 .
The equations of stresses for any ply, obtained by substituting the straindisplacement
relation into the general elasticity equation, are put into the resultant terms. The stress
resultants related to strains are as follows,
{N}
{M}
{P }
{Q}
{R}
n
o
(0)
n
o
(1)
o
n
(3)
[A] [D]
[D] [F ]
(0)
(2)
(5.23)
(5.24)
h/2
h/2
ij , Q
mn
Q
1, z, z 2 , z 3 , z,4 , z 6 dz
o n
and (3)
62
(5.25)
respectively on the right hand side of Eq. 5.21 and (0) and (2) are defined as the
first and the second matrix terms respectively on the right hand side of Eq. 5.22.
The equations of motion of this theory can be derived from the virtual work stated as,
0 = U + V
(5.26)
Exact analytical solutions for specific boundary conditions can be obtained when using either Navier, Levy or RayleighRitz type solutions. Navier solutions are the most
widely used and feasible when considering a simply supported crossply and have therefore
been selected for this work. The laminate plates have to be restricted to specific simply
supported boundary conditions.
For crossply, the boundary conditions are satisfied by the following expansion:
u0 (x, y) =
Umn cosxsiny
(5.27)
Vmn sinxcosy
(5.28)
Wmn sinxsiny
(5.29)
Xmn cosxsiny
(5.30)
n=1 m=1
v0 (x, y) =
n=1 m=1
w0 (x, y) =
n=1 m=1
x (x, y) =
n=1 m=1
y (x, y) =
Ymn sinxcosy
63
(5.31)
n=1 m=1
The transverse load q(x, y) is also expanded in a Fourier series when employing the Navier
procedure presented as,
X
q(x, y) =
Qmn sinxsiny
(5.32)
n=1 m=1
4
Qmn (z) =
LB
q(x, y)sin
mx
ny
sin
dxdy
L
B
(5.33)
Substituting Eqs. 5.27 to 5.33 into the equation of motion, for static purposes the coefficients (Umn , Vmn , Wmn , Xmn , Ymn ) can be found from the following equations,
0
0
Umn
Vmn
Xmn
0
Ymn
(5.34)
0
where [C] is the stiffness matrix. For a uniformly distributed load, Qmn = 16q
2 mn where
(k)
xx
yy
xy
xz
Q11 Q12
12 Q
22
=
Q
(k)
yz
Q44
(k)
0
0
66
Q
(k)
55
Q
(k)
xx
xy
xz
(5.35)
(k)
yz
yy
(5.36)
64
For the case of buckling, the critical buckling load can be found by solving the following
equation.
([C] [G])[] = [0]
(5.37)
where [G] is the stiffness matrix due to the inplane forces and is the buckling parameter.
G33
yy
N
= +
2,
Nxx
2
Gij = 0 i, j = 1, 2, ..., 5 (i 6= 3, j 6= 3)
(5.38)
In this work, critical buckling load (Ncr ) is equal to at (m, n = 1). For a uniaxial
yy /N
xx = 0.0 and for a biaxial buckling load N
yy /N
xx = 1.0.
buckling load, N
5.4
5.4.1
Genetic Algorithm
Introduction
The Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are stochastic search methods which mimic the laws of
natural evolution. As mentioned in section 4.3, natural evolution in the context of engineering requires parent designs breeding together to form offspring which are then
ranked or selected for their ability to breed against some criteria or constraint. GAs
can be applied to solving a variety of optimisation problems that are not well suited to
standard optimisation algorithms, including problems in which the objective function is
discontinuous, nondifferentiable, stochastic or highly nonlinear. The general structure of
GAs (see Figure 5.4) is described by the following sections.
5.4.2
Initial population
In the first step of GA searching, the initial population is randomly generated. The population is represented as a group of organisms, each of which consists of a fixed number
of chromosomes. Each chromosome is comprised of many genes that could be encoded by
binary number, finite string digit, alphabet (letter) or real numbers.
Start
65
Encoding
New
population
Initial
population
Decoding
Evaluation
Solutions
Fitness
computation
Selection
Crossover
Mutation
Termination ?
Stop
For continuous variables such as real numbers, the method of encoding is explained by
Gen and Cheng (1997). Firstly the chromosome length is defined by the required precision. If the required precision is two places for instance, the range of domain of each
variable could be divided into at least (xu xl )102 size ranges where xu and xl are upper
66
and lower bounds of each variable respectively. The required bits denoted by (m) for a
variable are calculated based on the following equation.
2m1 < (xu xl ) 2m 1
(5.39)
The mapping from a binary string to a real number for a variable is completed by,
x = xl + decimal(bi)
(xu xl )
(2m 1)
(5.40)
where decimal(bi) is the decimal value of binary number (b) of the design variable (x).
To be clear, the following example is described. The optimisation problem has one design
variable x1 which has the range, 3.0 < x1 < 12.1. Suppose that the precision is set as five
places after the decimal point. Then between the range, there are 151,000 divisions from
(12.1(3.0)105). The chromosome length (m) can be determined from Eq.5.39. It has
been found that 151,000 is between 217 and 218 , so the chromosome length is equal to 18. If
the chromosome is 000001010100101001, the decimal value of binary number (decimal(bi))
is equal to (1 212 ) + (1 210 ) + (1 28 ) + (1 25 ) + (1 23 ) + (1 20 ) = 5417. Finally, the corresponding value (phenotype) of this chromosome is evaluated from Eq. 5.40.
In some problems, a finite string digit is used for encoding. Lee and Lin (2004) use a
GA to design a composite propeller, in the stacking sequence of the propeller, the [45]2
stack is assigned the digit 1, the [0]2 stack is assigned the digit 2, the [45]2 stack is assigned
the digit 3 and the [90]2 is assigned the digit 4. Hence, for instance, [02 /902 /02 / 452 ] is
encoded as [2 4 2 1].
To increase the robustness of GAs, a feasible initial population is required. This can
be implemented by adding the algorithm to eliminate every chromosome giving the solution which fails to satisfy all constraints.
5.4.3
67
Evaluation
This is the process of evaluating the fitness of a chromosome. The chromosomes genotype
(binary code of all design variables) is transformed to its phenotype (a single characteristic of one design e.g. plate thickness). Generally, the fitness is directly related to the
value of the objective function, f (x), of the phenotype. For the minimisation problem,
the fitness is equal to 1/f (x). Otherwise, the fitness is equal to f (x).
According to the fitness calculation of the constrained problem, the use of a penalty
function is necessary in order to transform the problem to an unconstrained problem.
The principle of the penalty function is whenever the constraints are violated a penalty
is added to the objective function. Therefore, the evaluation function (eval(x)) with a
penalty term as used by Maneepan et al. (2005) to calculate the fitness can be expressed
as,
eval(x) = f (x) + P (x)
(5.41)
where x represents the decoded values of a chromosome, f (x) is the objective function
and P (x) is the penalty term which can be written as,
P (x) =
m
X
Rgi2 (x)
(5.42)
i=1
where g(x), (i = 1, ..., m) are design constraints. R is the penalty parameter which is a
constant value.
The rejection strategy is one form of the penalty method. Its principle is to discard
all infeasible individuals created throughout the evolution process. This means at a time
if the constraints are satisfied, f (x) keeps its own value. Otherwise, f (x) is assigned equal
to zero.
68
introduced to the fitness calculation. Generally, the scaled fitness (fk ) is calculated from
the raw fitness fk for chromosome (k) by fk = scal(fk ) where scal(.) is the function used
to transform the raw fitness into scaled fitness. Different scaling methods have different
scaling functions. An example of scaling methods is normalisation which can be defined
for the maximisation problem as,
fk =
fk fmin + r
fmax fmin + r
(5.43)
where fmax and fmin are the best and the worst raw fitnesses in the current population
respectively. r is a small positive real number in the range from 0 to 1.
To find the fitness of a problem having more than one objective function, the weight
sum strategy is employed as can be seen in Walker and Smith (2003) who presented
multiobjective optimisation of laminated composite structures by GA. For the minimisation problem, the fitness is equal to one over the value of the combined objective functions
(mf ) which can be determined from,
mf = 1 f1 + 2 f2 + ... + n fn
(5.44)
where f1 , f2 , ..., fn are the normalised values of the objective functions. Weight factors
(1 , 2 , ..., n ) are greater than or equal to zero and (1 + 2 + ... + n ) = 1.
5.4.4
Exploiting operator
The exploiting operator or selection operator is used to exploit the design space by a
randomised procedure to create a new population. The chromosomes with a large fitness
are copied with a high probability into the mating pool whereas those with low fitness are
copied with a low probability or are even removed from the population. Selection schemes
include roulette wheel, tournament, elitism and ranking selection.
Roulette wheel selection: at the time of spinning the roulette wheel, chromosomes
are selected from the pool by determining their survival probability (pk ), that can
n
X
eval(vk )
69
(5.45)
k=1
where eval(vk ) is the fitness value of the individual (vk ), n is population size and k =
1, 2, 3, ..., n. If the individual has a relatively high fitness value, it has a high chance
of being selected. Spinning is repeated until the selected chromosome population is
equal to the population size.
Tournament selection: the best chromosome is picked out among a few individuals
(tournament size), which are randomly chosen. Selection procedure can be easily
adjusted by changing the tournament size. If the tournament size is larger, the weak
individuals have a smaller chance of being selected.
Ranking selection: this method not only selects the best chromosomes but also
increases the chance that every chromosome will be selected. The individuals in the
population are ranked related to their fitness values. The selection is based on the
following probability distribution (pk ).
pk =
2k
(m(m + 1))
(5.46)
5.4.5
70
Exploring operators
Crossover
The crossover, reproductive operator, performs a widespread search of the exploring solution space. At a time, it operates on parents (two chromosomes randomly selected from
the population after performing the selection). The offspring are created by combining
parent features.
Single point crossover: there is one crossover point that is randomly selected from
bits positioned on one chromosome. The two parent strings x = [x1 , x2 , ..., xn ] and
y = [y1 , y1 , ..., yn ] are cut at the same point and the cut off strings are swapped
across to produce offspring of the form.
x = [x1 , x2 , ..., xk , yk+1, yk+2, ..., yn ] and y = [y1 , y2, ..., yk , xk+1 , ..., xn ]
Two point crossover: it is used to produce offspring by exchanging binary genes
between two points. Two individuals in the parent population are divided into
three parts by two crossover points which are randomly selected. The middle parts
of the parents are swapped to produce the offspring.
Uniform crossover: this method mixes the parent chromosome at segment level.
Hence, the genes of the parent chromosomes have a chance to be exchanged at
every locus. The chance is controlled by the mixing ratio (mr ) whose range is
typically between 0.5 to 0.8. The two offspring generated by uniform crossover are
B = r(B2 B1 ) + B2
(5.47)
where r is a random number between 0 and 1. It also assumes that the parent B2
is not worse than B1 . When considering the minimisation problem, f itness(B2 )
71
f itness(B1 ).
Arithmetical crossover: it is defined by Bazarra (1990) as the combination of two
chromosomes x1 and x2 as follows,
1 x1 + 2 x2
(5.48)
the mutation probability (pm ). For instance, if pm then the offspring (xk ) is
mutate, the offspring B = [x1 , x2 , ..., xk , ..., xn ]. The position of xk is found from
72
xuk and xlk are the upper and lower bounds of xk respectively. (t, y) is a function
which returns a value in the range [0, y].
5.5
The laminate is the fundamental element of all plate types. The binary representation
of the design variables of the laminate scheme which is used for every application in this
thesis is expressed and shown in Figure 5.5. Each laminate consists of eight plies but the
coding is only for half of the laminate. Each ply is represented by seven bits except the
first ply which always exists.
Halflayup of laminate
01/00/101/01/11/010/00/01/11
First ply
1/ 01 / 11 / 01
Areal weight
Fibre Angle
Fibre type
5.6
73
Weight function
The objective function can be changed following the purpose of the design. The main
interest of this work is in weight minimisation. The following expression is the weight
evaluation function of tophat cross stiffened plate.
Weight of base plate is a product of the volume of composite material with the density of
the material. Weight of the individual ply of base plate is,
(LBtbp ) bp
(5.49)
where L and B is length and width of base plate respectively. tbp is the thickness of the
individual ply and bp is the density of composite material of the individual ply.
As the base plate consists of nbp layers, the total weight of base plate (Wbp ) can be
expressed as,
Wbp = LB
nbp
X
tbp(k) bp(k)
(5.50)
k=1
Similarly, the weight of the crown element of a girder (Wcg ) which consists of ncg layers
can be written as,
Wcg = B
ncg
X
tcg(k) ag cg(k)
(5.51)
k=1
where tcg is the ply thickness of the crown element, ag is the width of the crown element
and cg is the density of composite material of the individual ply of the crown element.
For the web element of a girder which is comprised of nwg layers, its weight (Wwg ) can be
presented as,
nwg
Wwg = B
twg(k) hg wg(k)
(5.52)
k=1
where twg is the ply thickness of web element, hg is the height of web element and cg is
the density of composite material of the individual ply of web element.
74
As one girder has two web elements, the total weight of girder Wg is,
Wg = Wcg + 2Wwg
(5.53)
The weight of the beam is defined by the same method as the weight of girder Wg . The
total weight of the plate is,
WT = Wbp + gWg + bWb
(5.54)
where g and b are the number of girders and beams respectively. Moreover, the weight
function in Eq. 5.54 can be used for other types of plates. For a unidirectional stiffened
plate, b = 0. For an unstiffened plate, g = 0 and b = 0.
Chapter 6
Validation and testing
6.1
Introduction
The accuracy of the optimisation framework is primarily related to the structural analysis
module and the genetic algorithm module. The analysis method of a stiffened composite
plate is validated with a displacement method on the steel grillage and the results of
equivalent elastic properties of symmetric laminate. For the unstiffened case, HSDT is
implemented and validated with the results of Reddy (1997). The GA based optimisation
procedure is tested for its convergence with different starting points and different operators. Finally, the ability of the framework is demonstrated by comparing with ANSYS
optimisation.
6.2
Grillage analysis
The following steel grillage examples are used for validation and study purposes.
75
76
To analyse the steel grillage, the following methods are implemented: the Force Method
(FM) shown in Eq.3.13 presented by Jang et al. (1996), the Othotropic Plate Method
(OPM) shown in Eq.3.18 presented by Timosheko (1959) and the Energy Method (EM),
shown in Chapter 5 which is developed by the author for composite materials has been
adjusted in this example to account for steel.
77
Table 6.1: Comparison between the results of the developed programs from energy method
based Navier solution (EM), Orthrotropic Plate Method (OPM), Force Method (FM) and
the results of Clarkson (1965) for the maximum deflection max (mm) and maximum stress
g
b
of girder max
(MP a) and beam max
(MP a).
Grillage Beam
type
I
44
box
I
45
box
Solution
max (mm)
max (MP a)
max (mm)
max (MP a)
max (mm)
g
max
(MP a)
b
max
(MP a)
max (mm)
g
max
(MP a)
b
max
(MP a)
Clarkson
(1965)
10.95
183.27
9.63
165.52
20.41
137.88
205.35
18.34
125.37
184.66
FM
10.95
183.27
9.63
165.52
20.41
137.88
205.35
18.34
125.37
184.66
Present
OPM
11.01
9.93
21.05
19.10

EM
11.01
189.76
9.93
171.19
21.05
142.79
206.82
19.10
129.59
186.87
much lower computational time. It is not easy to obtain the stress solution from
the Othotropic Plate Method (OPM).
(b) Equivalent elastic properties:
In the case of the unidirectional stiffened plate, the base plate element is under membrane mode in the xdirection and under bending mode in ydirection if stiffeners lay
along xdirection. Therefore, this section shows the validation of the developed program
for the membrane equivalent Youngs modulus in xdirection Exm which can be evaluated
from Eq.5.1 and the bending equivalent Youngs modulus in ydirection (Eyb ) which can
be evaluated by the following equation.
Eyb =
2
12(D11 D22 D12
)
3
t D11
(6.1)
n
X
k
(tk zk2 +
t3k
)(Qij )k
12
(6.2)
78
where zk is the distance from midplane to centroid of k th layer, n is the number of layer
in laminate and Qij is the transformed stiffness which is presented in Eq.5.4, Eq.5.5 and
Eq.5.5.
The equivalent Youngs modulus is evaluated from five laminates: [0/0/0/0], [0/90/90/0],
[90/0/0/90], [45/45/45/45] and [0/45/45/90]s. The lamina properties are E1 = 140 GP a,
E2 = 10 GP a, G12 = 5 GP a and v12 = 0.3. Ply thickness (tk )=0.125 mm, all equal
through laminate.
Table 6.2: Comparison between the results of the developed program of equivalent elastic
properties and those of Datoo (1991)
Laminate
Equivalent
elastic constants
m
[0/0/0/0]
Ex (membrane mode)
Eyb (bending mode)
[0/90/90/0]
Exm (membrane mode)
Eyb (bending mode)
[90/0/0/90]
Exm (membrane mode)
Eyb (bending mode)
[45/45/45/45] Exm (membrane mode)
[0/45/45/90]s Exm (membrane mode)
The symmetric rectangular box section consists of webs, crown and base plate. Web
79
height is 50 mm. Crown and base plate width is 200 mm. The Youngs modulus of the
crown and base plate elements is 54.1 GP a. The Youngs modulus of web (Ew ) is 17.7
GP a. The section is subjected to shear force Q = 10 kN. The thickness of the crown and
base plate elements is 1.0 mm. The thickness of the web is 0.5 mm. SF1 and 1 are shear
flow and shear stress at the corner of the crown element respectively. SF2 and 2 are the
shear flow and the shear stress at the neutral axis (N.A.) of the cross section respectively.
Table 6.3: Comparison of the developed program shear stress calculation with Datoo
(1991)
SF1 (N/mm)
1 (N/mm2 )
SF2 (N/mm)
2 (N/mm2 )
From Table 6.3, it can be noticed that the developed program agrees well with the results
by Datoo who ignored the accuracy after the decimal.
6.3
The Higher order Shear Deformation Theory (HSDT) are implemented and tested in
finding responses of laminated plates which are maximum deflection, stresses and critical
buckling load for uniaxial and biaxial compression .
Laminate is [0/90/90/0]. Length to width ratio (L/B) of the plate is equal to 1.0. Material properties are E1 = 175 GP a, E2 = 7 GP a, G12 = G13 = 3.5 GP a, G23 = 1.4 GP a,
and v12 = v13 = 0.25. The load acting on the plate is a sinusoidally distributed load (q0 ).
3
80
Present
1.894
0.715
0.506
0.434
w 102
TSDT FSDT CLPT 3D
1.894 1.710
1.954
0.715 0.663
0.743
0.506 0.491
0.517
0.434 0.434 0.431 0.438
From Table 6.4, the present result is exactly the same as that of Reddy (1997) as expected. In addition, the third order shear deformation theory (TSDT) provides the best
solution when compared to First order shear deformation theory (FSDT) and Classical
laminated plate theory (CLPT) because its solution is closest to the 3Ds solution. As
CLPT gives error results if the ratio of L/t less than 20, the deflection results are not
shown at that range of L/t.
Square laminated plate has [0/90/0] fibre orientation. Material properties are the same
as in (a). The load acting on the plate is a sinusoidal transverse load. The normalised
terms of stresses are,
x = x (t2 /(q0 L2 ))
y = y (t2 /(q0 L2 ))
xy = xy (t2 /(q0 L2 ))
yz = yz (t/(q0 L))
xz = xz (t/(q0 L))
The validation of the program subroutine is validated in Table 6.5. From the table, it
can be seen that the results of the presented program provide exactly the same as TSDT
81
Table 6.5: Nondimensionalised stresses in a three layer [0/90/0] simply supported square
laminate under sinusoidal transverse load
(L/t)
Theory
y
xz
yz
a
3D
0.938 0.669 0.164 0.2591
b
2
T SDT 1.3112 0.5876
Present 1.3112 0.5876 0.1543 0.2411
3D a
0.552 0.210 0.385 0.0938
b
20
T SDT 0.5460 0.2043
Present 0.5460 0.2043 0.2549 0.0825
3D a
0.541 0.185 0.393 0.0842
50
T SDT b 0.5399 0.1836
Present 0.5399 0.1836 0.2580 0.0760
3D a
0.539 0.181 0.395 0.0828
100 T SDT b 0.539 0.1806
Present 0.539 0.1806 0.2586 0.0750
a: Pagano (1970) and b: Kant and Swaminathan
xy
0.0859
0.0889
0.0889
0.0234
0.0230
0.0230
0.0216
0.0216
0.0216
0.0213
0.0214
0.0214
(2002)
Laminate is [0/90/90/0]. Layer thickness is the same throughout the laminate. L/B
of the plate is equal to 1.0. Material properties are
E1
E2
= 40,
G12
E2
G13
E2
= 0.6,
G23
E2
= 0.5
L2
82
Table 6.6: Comparison of nondimensionalised uniaxial buckling loads (N) of the developed
TSDT program with those of TSDT, FSDT and CLPT of Reddy (1997)
L/t
5
10
20
50
100
are
E1
E2
= 25,
G12
E2
G13
E2
= 0.5,
Present
11.997
23.340
31.660
35.347
35.953
G23
E2
N 102
TSDT FSDT
11.997 11.575
23.340 23.453
31.660 31.707
35.347 35.356
35.953 35.955
CLPT
36.160
36.160
36.160
36.160
36.160
L2
load is N = Ncr E2 t3 .
Table 6.7: Comparison between nondimensionalised biaxial buckling loads (N) of the
developed TSDT program and those of FSDT with shear correction factor (K) = 5/6 of
Reddy (1997)
L/t
10
20
25
50
100
CLPT
[0/90/0]
FSDT Present
7.644
7.110
10.314 10.049
10.784 10.596
11.489 11.435
11.682 11.668
11.747 11.668
[0/90/0/90/0]
FSDT Present
8.154
7.984
10.564 10.486
10.958 10.905
11.539 11.524
11.695 11.691
11.747 11.691
[0/90/0/90/0/90/0]
FSDT
Present
8.267
8.192
10.619
10.584
10.998
10.974
11.550
11.543
11.698
11.696
11.747
11.696
Table 6.7 shows that the results of the developed program agree well with that of the
FSDT and the larger the number of layers, the higher the critical buckling load.
6.4
83
Optimisation procedure
6.4.1
Varying GA operators
To confirm the correctness of the optimisation procedure, a case is chosen for which an
optimum solution is already known: the minimisation of the central deflection of a rectangular plate with fibre alignment parallel to the shortest side. This is Case MD1 from
Chapter 8, section 8.3.1.
25
Fitness
20
15
10
5
S1+C1
S1+C2
S2+C1
S2+C2
0
10
20
30
40
50
Generations
60
70
80
90
100
84
25
Fitness
20
15
10
S1+C1
S1+C2
S2+C1
S2+C2
5
10
20
30
40
50
Generations
60
70
80
90
100
6.4.2
This subsection presents the testing of the starting point from far to exact solution. The
test problem is the same as the former section. The GA parameters for every starting
point are Chromosome length = 4 bits, Population size = 4, Crossover Probability = 0.9,
85
St1=starting point1, St2=starting point2, St3=starting point 3, St4=starting point 4, St5=starting point 5
0.35
0.3
0.25
Fitness
St1
St2
St3
St4
St5
0.2
0.15
0.1
10
15
20
25
Generations
30
35
40
45
50
86
0.7
0.6
Time(second)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
3
Starting points
6.5
This section presents the comparison of optimal results from the presented framework
(GA with grillage analysis) with the results from ANSYS (the finite element commercial
software).
The testing problem can be stated as follows. The structure is blade stiffened plate
made of steel, E = 200 GP a (see Figure 6.5). The pressure load acting on the plate is
equal to 1 MP a. Its dimensions are L = 1000 mm, B = 1000 mm and the thickness of
87
base plate = 10 mm. The stiffener is a blade stiffener having H height and T thickness
which are assigned as design variables. The grillage representation of the plate has an
effective width equal to its stiffener spacing.
Design variables:
1 mm < T < 16 mm
20 mm < H < 275 mm
Constraint:
88
0.0969
0.0968
0.0967
Fitness
0.0966
0.0965
0.0964
0.0963
0.0962
0.0961
10
20
30
Generations
40
50
Within the ANSYS analysis, the plate with exactly the same shape as the plate in Figure 6.5 (without grillage assumption) is modelled by shell63, 4 node element having six
degrees of freedom at each node. The firstorder solution method is selected as the optimisation tool. The iteration history of this problem can be seen in Figure 6.7.
89
The comparison of results from both methods is presented in Table 6.8. It can be concluded that the GA with Grillage analysis provides a volume higher than that of ANSYS,
by 0.1164 %. However results can be obtained from the GA with grillage anlysis 376 times
quicker than from ANSYS.
Table 6.8: The optimal results of 1 1 blade stiffened plate
Stiffener height (H) (mm)
Stiffener thickness (T) (mm)
Volume (mm3 )
Deflection (mm)
Time (second)
ANSYS
153.25
1.0
10,306,000
19.02
285
90
Chapter 7
Applications to stiffened plates
7.1
Introduction
For the next two chapters, the present optimization framework is applied to composite
ship structures. Since in the ship structural design process, stiffened plates are considered
as the secondary structure and the unstiffened plates are tertiary structures, this chapter
is concerned with the design of unidirectional and cross stiffened plates (For the definitions of the parameters of these plate types, see Figure 5.1). All edges of those plates
are subjected to a simply supported condition. The pressure load acting on the plates is
equal to 0.05 MP a.
For all applications, a symmetric laminate was used. The resin is Epoxy and fibre volume
c
fraction (Vf ) is fixed to 0.6. The foam core is Airex
C70.90
having E = 84 MP a, v =
0.32 and density is 100 kg/m3 . Design variables for the laminate scheme are as follows:
Number of plies (n) could be 2, 4, 6 or 8.
92
Epoxy
1200
Eglass
2550
HS
1740
HM
2000
UHM
2180
3.0
72
297
520
826
0.37
0.2
1.09
30
148.5
250
413
5.0
3.0
1.4
0.4
0.3
0.085
2.4
4.1
2.1
2.2
0.130
0.0654
3.68
1.2
60
300
4320
In considering the strength constraint, the Failure Index (FI) is derived from the maximum stress criterion which is applied to every layer in the laminate at the FI considering
positions as shown in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2. The maximum stress criterion is selected
for all applications because it is simple and suitable for problems having uncomplicated
stress results. FI1,FI2 and FI12 denote the failure index in fibre direction, resin direction,
and the shear mode (direction onetwo), respectively. For the unidirectional stiffened laminated plates with girders only, the following three positions (US1,US2 and US3) shown
in Figure 7.1 are considered.
US1 and US3 are at centre of the plate on the crown element of the girder and on
93
US1
B
L
US2
US3
x
Bottom view
Figure 7.1: Positions at which failure index is considered for unidirectional stiffened plate
For the cross stiffened laminated plates, the following five positions (CS1,CS2,CS3,CS4
and CS5) shown in Figure 7.2 are considered.
CS1 and CS2 are at the centre of the plate on the crown element of the girder and
beam respectively.
CS3 and CS4 are at the N.A. of the web element of the middle girder and the middle
beam, respectively.
94
CS2
CS1
B
L
y
CS4
CS3
CS5
Bottom view
Figure 7.2: Positions at which failure index is considered for cross stiffened plate
7.2
By fixing the number of beams at five, the effect of the number of girders on the maximum deflection of the grillage, made of the same laminate through the structure, can be
investigated.
The laminate information is fibre orientation ( [0(8) ]T ), fibre type layup ([UHM(8) ]T )
and areal weight ([0.5(8) ]T ). This study has been done for three length to width (L/B)
95
ratio cases. From Figure 7.3, it can be concluded that the higher the magnitude of (L/B),
the lower the effect of the number of girders on the maximum deflection.
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
L/B=1.0
L/B=2.0
L/B=3.0
0.55
0.5
10
Number of girders
15
Figure 7.3: Normalised maximum deflection vs. number of girders by fixing number of
beams at five for three lengthtowidth ratio cases
In the study of the effect of the number of girders for a length to width ratio of one,
the number of beams was kept constant at five and the same laminate information was
used as described above. gt and bt are the maximum direct stress in the crown element
of the middle girder and the middle beam respectively. g and b are the maximum shear
stress at the N.A. of the web element of the middle girder and the middle beam respectively.
From Figure 7.4, it can be concluded that the number of girders (g) has little influence on
both directand shearstresses on the beams. On the other hand, when g increases, those
stresses in the girders are dramatically reduced.
96
1
0.9
0.8
Normalised values
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
gt
0.3
bt
0.2
0.1
10
Number of girders
15
Figure 7.4: Normalised values of direct and shear stresses on the crown element of the
middle girder and the middle beam vs. number of girders by fixed number of beams at
five
To establish the strength constraints or to maximise the strength of the grillage, the
maximum stress criterion (see Appendix B) is used in this work and the strength is represented by a Failure Index (FI).
In one lamina, to minimise the magnitude of FI, the stress acting on the lamina should
be low, the strength properties of the lamina should be high and fibre angle should be
laid properly to support the loads acting on.
To study the effect of fibre angle on the Failure Index (FI) of a lamina, for FI1 and
FI2 the lamina is acted upon only by a unit direct stress in the xaxis (x ) and for FI12
the lamina is acted upon by a unit shear stress (xy ). Therefore, x = 1, y = 1 and
97
(7.1)
(7.2)
(7.3)
All strength properties of the lamina are set to 1.0 which are Xt = 1, Yt = 1 and S = 1.
1
FI1
FI2
FI12
0.9
0.8
0.7
FI
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fibre angle (Degree)
70
80
90
Figure 7.5: The influence of fibre angle on Failure Index (FI) from maximum stress
criterion
Fibre angle of the lamina varies from 0 to 90 . Then, the plot of fibre angle against the
FI is shown in the Figure 7.5 and the following points can be discussed:
The FI1 and FI2 reach their maximum values at 0 and 90 , respectively. In a real
situation, the strength in the transverse fibre direction is quite low compared to that
in the fibre direction. Then if Yt < Xt , FI2 at 90 is higher than FI1 at 0 so that
for the lamina subjected to only x , fibre is conveniently laid along the xdirection
98
7.3
7.3.1
For this section, the dimension of the unidirectional tophat stiffened plate subjected to
simply supported conditions around its edges is L = 1000 mm and B = 4500 mm. All
symbols representing the plate dimensions are the same as in Figure 5.1. The girders
having tophat geometry are laid along the shortest side. Girder spacing (mm) is allowed
to be either 281.25, 375, 450 or 750.
Objective:
Design variables:
Girder spacing,
(independent)
Constraint:
The optimal results of the design case of maximising plate stiffness are shown in Table 7.2.
It can be seen that the girder spacing takes the highest value and fibres are aligned along
the girder direction (along shortest side of the plate). All selected fibres are Ultra High
Modulus carbon (UHM) with its maximum areal weight. This maximises the flexural
rigidity which provides the lowest central deflection because the deflection is a function
of flexural rigidity.
99
Table 7.2: Minimisation of the central deflection for the unidirectional stiffened laminated
plate
Girder spacing (mm)
Fibre angle
Fibre type
Aw (kg/m2 )
max (mm)
7.3.2
750
[0/0/0/0]s
[UHM/UHM/UHM/UHM]s
[0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5]s
0.0358
Maximise strength
Every structural element has the same layup for every case
Table 7.3: Minimisation of Failure Index (FI) at three positions on the unidirectional
stiffened laminated plate
Minimise FI at
US1
US2
US3
750.0
281.25
750.0
[0/0/0/0]s
[45/45/45/45]s
[0/0/0/0]s
[Eg/Eg/Eg/Eg]s [Eg/Eg/Eg/Eg]s [Eg/Eg/Eg/Eg]s
[1.6/1.6/1.6/1.6]s [1.6/1.6/1.6/1.6]s [1.6/1.6/1.6/1.6]s
0.0053
0.1994
0.0053
0.0173
0.0104
0.0173
0.0043
0.1323
0.0043
For the case of maximising plate strength, the optimum results and GA convergence are
shown in Table 7.3 and Figure 7.6 respectively. The discussion of those results are as
follows. Fibre angle is controlled by the direction of stress. For example, minimising
failure index (FI) at the crown and base plate element, the fibre angle is laid along girder
100
250
200
Fitness
150
100
CaseUS1
CaseUS2
CaseUS3
50
50
100
150
Generations
200
250
300
7.3.3
101
Weight minimisation
0.035
0.03
CaseWU1
CaseWU2
CaseWU3
CaseWU4
Fitness
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
20
40
60
Generations
80
100
Figure 7.7: Convergence of GA run for weight minimisation: unidirectional stiffened plates
Objective:
Design variables:
(independent)
Constraints:
(1) CaseWU1:
(2) CaseWU2:
(3) CaseWU3:
(4) CaseWU4:
Note:
102
The case of weight minimisation under the stiffness and strength constraint gives the
results shown in Table 7.4, their GA convergence shown in Figure 7.7 and their discussions
are as follows. To reduce the weight, the GA has selected unsurprisingly carbon fibre.
Fibre angle of zero degree (along girder direction) help the plate to satisfy the stiffness
constraint. Although the high strength carbon (HS) has the lowest density, the UHM
is selected because the UHM provide the lower thickness. However, HS appear at the
crown element when the strength constraint is tightened. In CaseWU3, although the
FIlimit is reduced to 10% of CaseWU2 to 0.1, there is much less effect on minimum
weight (increase from that of the CaseWU1, 0.11%). Both CaseWU4 and CaseWU3
give the same optimum result. Therefore, reduction of deflection limit has no effect for
this application.
Table 7.4: Weight minimisation of unidirectional stiffened laminated plate subjected to
stiffness and strength constraints
Constraints
CaseWU1
750.0
[45]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[45]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[45]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
31.4187
8.8657
1.19808
0.2558
1.1865
CaseWU2
10.0
1.0
750.0
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
31.4187
1.6547
0.2236
0.0023
0.0166
CaseWU3
10.0
0.1
750.0
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0]s
[HS]s
[0.2]s
31.4535
0.7212
0.0468
0.0345
0.0780
CaseWU4
1.0
0.1
750.0
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0]s
[HS]s
[0.2]s
31.4535
0.7212
0.0468
0.0345
0.0780
7.4
103
7.4.1
Maximise stiffness
0.7
L/B=1.0
L/B=2.0
L/B=3.0
0.6
Fitness
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
20
40
60
Generations
80
100
Figure 7.8: Convergence of GA run for maximisation of stiffness: cross stiffened plates
Objective:
Design variables:
104
Girder spacing:
Beam spacing:
(range in mm)
Constraint:
Note:
Every structural element has the same layup for every case
All symbols representing the plate dimensions are the same as in Figure 5.1
The optimal results of the design case of maximising plate stiffness are shown in Table
7.5 and their GA convergence is shown in Figure 7.8. Optimum results of this design
case are similar to those of the unidirectional stiffened plates. The following notices can
be obtained. To maximise the stiffness, Ultra High Modulus carbon (UHM) is selected
because of its highest Young modulus. The areal weight of UHM is at its highest value
because it provides the highest thickness. Beam spacing is always wider than girder
spacing except for the square plate. In this instance, both girder and beam spacing
are the upperbound value because the larger girder or beam, the higher the the second
moment of area. By setting all elements to the same layup scheme, fibre angle is all zero
degree (lay along stiffeners direction).
Table 7.5: Minimisation of central deflection of cross stiffened laminated plate
(L/B) = 1.0
750.0
750.0
[0/0/0/0]s
(L/B) = 2.0
281.25
1500.0
[0/0/0/0]s
(L/B) = 3.0
750.0
2250.0
[0/0/0/0]s
[UHM/UHM/UHM/UHM]s
[UHM/UHM/UHM/UHM]s
[UHM/UHM/UHM/UHM]s
[0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5]s
10.0292
[0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5]s
4.3475
[0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5]s
1.9091
7.4.2
105
Maximise strength
35
30
Fitness
25
20
15
CaseCS1
CaseCS2
CaseCS3
CaseCS4
CaseCS5
10
50
100
150
Generations
200
250
300
Figure 7.9: Convergence of GA run for maximisation of strength: cross stiffened plates
Plate dimension:
Objective:
106
Constraint:
Every structural element has the same layup for every case
Table 7.6: Minimisation of Failure Index (FI) at five positions on the cross stiffened
laminated plate
CS1
281.25
750.0
[90(8) ]T
[UHM(8) ]T
[0.5(8) ]T
0.0380
0.7348
0.1421
0.1115
0.0329
Minimise FI at
CS2
CS3
CS4
750.0
281.25
750.0
281.25
750.0
281.25
[0(8) ]T
[45(8) ]T [45(8) ]T
[HS(8) ]T [Eg(8) ]T
[Eg(8) ]T
[0.5(8) ]T
[1.6(8) ]T
[1.6(8) ]T
0.1234
0.5122
1.3409
0.0401
1.3409
0.5122
0.6373
0.0493
0.1498
0.2395
0.1498
0.0493
0.7057
0.7464
0.7464
CS5
281.25
750.0
[90(8) ]T
[UHM(8) ]T
[0.5(8) ]T
0.0380
0.7348
0.1421
0.1115
0.0329
For the case of maximising plate strength, the optimum results and GA convergence are
shown in Table 7.6 and Figure 7.9 respectively. From those results, it can be noticed that
if the FI at girder is minimised, the girder spacing is the lower bound value. On the other
hand, if the FI at beam is minimised, the beam spacing is the lower bound value. Again,
45 fibre angle is used to resist the shear stress on the web of girders and beams. To
reduce the magnitude of shear stress, the webs of girder or beam must be shorter.
7.4.3
Weight minimisation
Plate dimension is L = 6096 mm, B = 2540 mm, all symbols representing the plate
dimensions are the same as in Figure 5.1
107
0.015
Fitness
0.01
0.005
CaseWC1
CaseWC2
CaseWC3
CaseWC4
50
100
Generations
150
200
Figure 7.10: Convergence of GA run for weight minimisation: cross stiffened plates
Objective:
Constraints:
Note:
108
The symbol ,<, means the optimum solutions must provide max
and F Imax less than the given limit
The GA convergence of this case can be seen in Figure 7.10. From the optimum results presented in Table 7.7 and with consideration of the discussion in section 7.3.3, the
following points can be drawn out.
For CaseWC1, every element contains only the light fibre (UHM) and there are
only two layers (lowerbound value of number of layers) for each laminate element.
With constraints in CaseWC2, the minimum weight increases by 38.32% from CaseWC1 where the limitation of deflection and FI are infinity. The maximum deflection
is forced by the constraints to change from 1707.42 mm to 24.96 mm (reduced by
98.54%).
The stiffness constraint has more influence on the minimum weight than the strength
constraint because, when the FI limit is reduced to 10% of CaseWC2, the minimum
weight increases by 6.62% from CaseWC2 and when the maximum deflection limit
is reduced to 10% of CaseWC3. Keeping FI limit the same as in CaseWC3, the
minimum weight increases by 66.82%.
109
Table 7.7: Weight minimisation of cross stiffened laminated plate under stiffness and
strength constraints
Constraints
CaseWC1
158.75
381.00
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[45]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[45]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
69.34
1707.42
3.1130
18.8227
1.2466
2.5404
18.5840
CaseWC2
25.40
1.0
158.75
609.60
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[HM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[HM]s
[0.2]s
[45/45/45]s
[UHM/HS/HS]s
[0.2/0.3/0.5]s
95.91
24.96
0.0298
0.4219
0.0063
0.1191
0.0314
CaseWC3
25.40
0.1
158.75
508.00
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[45]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0/0/0]s
[Eg/HS/Eg]s
[0.8/0.2/1.6]s
102.21
18.42
0.0223
0.0824
0.0004
0.0883
0.0726
CaseWC4
2.54
0.1
158.75
1016.00
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[90]s
[UHM]s
[0.2]s
[0]s
[HM]s
[0.4]s
[45]s
[HS]s
[0.2]s
[45/45/45/45]s
[Eg/HS/Eg/Eg]s
[1.6/0.3/1.6/1.6]s
160
2.48
0.0034
0.0571
0.0008
0.0146
0.0368
Chapter 8
Applications to unstiffened plates
8.1
Introduction
In the previous chapter, the optimisation has been performed for tophat stiffened plates
represented by a grillage without stability constraints. In a design process, we need to
consider the plate between the stiffeners as well. As one important design criterion in
composite ship design is buckling, in this chapter the optimal results are studied through
applying buckling resistance as the design objective for a single skin laminated plate. In
addition, the stiffness of the plate is also one of the case studies since the stiffness is one
of the main problems of composite structures. It is noted that the following application
examples use the same definition of design variables as in the Chapter 7 except fibre angle
() could be 0 or 90 only.
8.2
Parametric study
The laminate plates used for this study are simply supported around the edges and have
dimensions, L = 1000 mm and B = 400 mm. The pressure acting on the plate when
considering the maximum deflection (max ) was 0.05 N/mm2 . The laminate information
is fibre orientation ([90(8) ]T ), fibre type layup ([Eg(8) ]T ) and areal weight of [0.25(8) ]T . The
laminate has 0.1634 mm layer thickness (tk ). To study the effect of Youngs modulus of
110
111
fibre (Ef ) and tk on max and on critical buckling load Ncr for uniaxial compression, Ef
and tk are increased from 1.0 to 3.0 times their own reference values (Ef of Eglass and
tk = 0.1634 mm). Output values of max and Ncr are normalised through dividing those
values by the maximum values of an individual output set.
From Figure 8.1, when the magnitude of Ef and tk increase, the result of central deflection decrease. In addition, the layer thickness has more effect on central deflection
than Youngs modulus of fibre because the central deflection of a laminate plate depends
on flexural rigidity which is related to t3k (see Eq. 6.2).
Similar results are found for critical buckling load (Ncr ). From Figure 8.2, the higher
the values of the Youngs modulus of fibre and layer thickness, the higher the values of
Ncr that can be obtained. The thickness has much more influence on Ncr than the Youngs
modulus of fibre because Ncr Ef and Ncr t2k .
1
E
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1.5
2
Increment factors for E and t
f
2.5
Figure 8.1: The effect of Youngs modulus of fibre and layer thickness on central deflection
112
30
E
tk
25
20
15
10
1.5
2
Increment factors for E and t
f
2.5
Figure 8.2: The effect of Youngs modulus of fibre and layer thickness on critical uniaxial
compressive buckling load
8.3
Laminated plate
8.3.1
Maximise stiffness
This section is to present the maximisation of plate stiffness which is represented by the
magnitude of the central deflection and to study the optimal results when the number of
design variables increase. Plate dimension in reference to Figure 5.3 is L = 1000 mm and
B = 400 mm. The optimisation is performed in the following three cases.
CaseMD1: design variable is fibre angle in each lamina. Fibre type and its Areal
weight (Aw) are fixed to Eglass and 0.5 kg/m2 , respectively.
CaseMD2: design variables are fibre angle and fibre type in each lamina. Aw is
fixed to 0.5 kg/m2 .
CaseMD3: design variables are fibre angle, fibre type and Aw in each lamina.
113
0.7
0.6
Fitness
0.5
0.4
CaseMD1
CaseMD2
CaseMD3
0.3
0.2
0.1
20
40
60
Generations
80
100
114
In the caseMD1, the deflection is very high because the plate is very thin and
subjected to a high pressure load. After fibre type or/and areal weight become
design variables, the deflection is dramatically reduced. This shows a large influence
of each design variable on the plate stiffness.
Table 8.1: Minimisation of central deflection for the unstiffened laminated plate
Fibre angle
Fibre type
Aw (kg/m2)
Deflection (mm)
8.3.2
CaseMD1
CaseMD2
[90/90/90/90]s
[90/90/90/90]s
[UHM/UHM/HS/HM]s
289.63
15.51
CaseMD3
[90/90/90/90]s
[UHM/Eg/Eg/Eg]s
[0.5/1.6/1.6/1.6]s
4.09
Maximise strength
The plate under simply supported condition around its edges and design cases used in
this section are the same as the former section (maximise stiffness). Then, the design
cases (MS1, MS2 and MS3) have the same definition as the design cases (MD1, MD2
and MD3). The objective of all cases is to minimise the value of maximum Failure Index
(F Imax ).
Table 8.2: Maximise strength of the unstiffened laminated plate
CaseMS1
CaseMS2
Fibre angle [0/0/0/90]s
[0/0/0/0]s
Fibre type
[UHM/HS/HS/HS]s
2
Aw (kg/m )
F Imax
7.25
2.97
CaseMS3
[0/0/0/90]s
[Eg/Eg/Eg/Eg]s
[1.6/1.6/1.6/1.6]s
0.71
The optimal results are given in Table 8.2 and their GA convergence in Figure 8.4. The
discussion of those results is as follows.
Each design variable has a large influence on the strength of the plate: F Imax of case
MS2 and MS3 reduced from that of case MS1 by 59.03 % and 90.21 % respectively.
115
80
70
Fitness
60
CaseMS1
CaseMS2
CaseMS3
50
40
30
20
10
20
40
60
Generations
80
100
8.3.3
116
The specimen is a square laminated plate with L = 200 mm and B = 200 mm as shown
in Figure 5.3. The optimisation has been performed for uniaxial and biaxial compression.
For each of these load types, there are three cases. CaseMB1, CaseMB2 and CaseMB3
use the same conditions as CaseMD1, CaseMD2 and CaseMD3 respectively. From Table
8.3, it can be concluded that
The optimum results for layup for both uniaxial and biaxial compression are the
same for all cases. The critical buckling load for biaxial compression is half that of
uniaxial compression.
To obtain the maximum critical buckling load for this plate, the laminate should
be either a [0/90/90/90]s or [90/0/0/0]s layup in order to provide a high bending
stiffness.
The critical buckling load of the plate is a function of bending stiffness. Hence, a
higher fibre modulus leads to a higher critical buckling load. Therefore, the selected
fibre layup in CaseMB2 is [UHM/UHM/HS/HM]s.
For CaseMB3, Areal weight (Aw) is also a design variable. Because layer thickness
has an effect on the optimum results (see Figure 8.2), Eglass and its upperbound
Aw is selected for six layers.
117
Table 8.3: Maximisation of buckling load for the unstiffened laminated plate
Load types
Fibre angle
Uniaxial
compression
Biaxial
compression
Fibre type
Aw (kg/m2 )
Ncr (N/mm)
Fibre angle
Fibre type
Aw (kg/m2 )
Ncr (N/mm)
CaseMB1
CaseMB2
[0/90/90/90]s
[0/90/90/90]s
[90/0/0/0]s
[90/0/0/0]s
[UHM/UHM/HS/HM]s
29.92
361.40
[0/90/90/90]s
[0/90/90/90]s
[90/0/0/0]s
[90/0/0/0]s
[UHM/UHM/HS/HM]s
14.96
180.70
CaseMB3
[0/90/90/90]s
[90/0/0/0]s
[UHM/Eg/Eg/Eg]s
[0.5/1.6/1.6/1.6]s
1480.01
[0/90/90/90]s
[90/0/0/0]s
[UHM/Eg/Eg/Eg]s
[0.5/1.6/1.6/1.6]s
740.00
800
700
600
Fitness
500
400
CaseMB1
CaseMB2
CaseMB3
300
200
100
0
20
40
60
Generations
80
100
Figure 8.5: Convergence of GA run for maximisation of critical buckling load for uniaxial
compression: laminated plate
118
400
350
300
Fitness
250
200
CaseMB1
CaseMB2
CaseMB3
150
100
50
0
20
40
60
Generations
80
100
Figure 8.6: Convergence of GA run for maximisation of critical buckling load for biaxial
compression: laminated plate
Chapter 9
Conclusion and further work
9.1
Conclusion
The methodology (or optimisation framework), which has been used to design composite ship structures for the initial design stage, was firstly introduced. The framework is
unique due to the combination of GA and grillage analysis adapted for composite structure. Moreover, to increase the value of the framework, its capability has been expanded to
cover three plate types (unstiffened plate, unidirectional plate and cross stiffened plate).
Hence, for a structural analysis of unstiffened laminated plate, Higher order shear deformation theory is selected because it can provide accurate solutions with a favouable
computational time compared to the other methods.
The accuracy of optimal results depends on the accuracy of the subroutine program.
Hence, the important modules within the developed program have been separately validated. As the adapted grillage analysis is a combination of an analysis of steel grillage
and equivalent elastic properties, these two components were individually validated. The
steel grillage results of Clarkson (1969) and the equivalent elastic properties calculated
by Datoo (1998) were used as reference results. In the case of the structural analysis
of unstiffened laminate plates, the results of mechanical behaviour presented by Reddy
(1998) have been employed for validation. After connecting all the subroutines together,
119
120
the correctness of the optimisation procedures has been proved by using the simple composite optimisation problem (maximisation of centre deflection of unstiffened laminate
plate), which already has known optimal solutions. The strength constraint selected for
this work was based on the principal maximum stress criterion because this criterion is
easy to check correctness and its failure prediction is similar to the other criteria.
The program has been successfully applied to many composite structural optimisation
problems; from the problem of small design space with a composite structure having simple geometry (unstiffened laminated plate) to a problem with a large design space with a
composite structure having complex geometry (tophat cross stiffened plate).
From the optimal results in the application chapters, the following important points can
be concluded:
As the stiffener spacing is related to the stiffener height, the stiffener spacing is
likely to reach its upperbound value to gain the highest flexural rigidity.
To reduce the shear stress on web and the direct stress on the crown element, the
web height must be shorter and the selected fibre should be of the lower Youngs
modulus.
Although the high strength carbon is the lightest fibre considered, the ultra high
modulus carbon is selected in weight minimisation design case because it can provide
thinner elements.
The crown element is the most sensitive to stiffness constraint and strength constraints because it is far from the neutral axis of stiffener cross section.
Increasing the number of design variables has a large effect on the value of objective
functions. Therefore, when designing structures, it is important to include a large
number of design variables as much as possible.
A list of the main contributions of this research work are summarised as follows:
121
9.2
Further work
The framework could be further improved to offer a valuable tool for the design of composite ship structures. Therefore, the following points are suggested as further work.
The framework could be extended to cover the design of the midship section which
could be disassembled as many types of plates. Moreover, it should be used for the
other plate types such as curvate plate, plate with hole, stiffened sandwich plate
and so on.
Multiobjective optimisation could be introduced into the framework so that the
minimisation of weight and cost, which is important in ship design, is possible.
Plates with other support conditions (such as clamped all edges, clamped and simply
supported, clamped at twoedges and so on) should be considered because in real
structures those conditions have not been well defined.
Since there are various load types acting on ship structure, the framework should be
used for plates under various load types such as a combination of uniform pressure
load and inplane load.
122
Appendix A
Composite properties
The following equations from Smith (1990) are used to estimate material properties of
composite. The density property of composite (c ) is calculated by:
c = f Vf + m Vm
(A.1)
f and m are the densities of fibre and matrix and Vf and Vm are volume fractions of
fibre and matrix, respectively.
(A.2)
123
(A.3)
124
The HalpinTsai equation for transverse composite modulus (E2 ) can be expressed as:
E2
1 + Vf
=
Em
1 Vf
(A.4)
where,
=
(Ef /Em 1)
(Ef /Em ) +
(A.5)
The composite inplane shear modulus (G12 ) can be evaluated from Eq. A.4 and Eq. A.5
by replacing E2 , Ef and Em with G12 , Gf (shear modulus of fibre) and Gm (shear modulus
of matrix). The coefficient , which depends on fibre geometry and the form of loading,
is determined empirically: for the usual case of circular section fibres, satisfactory results
are obtained taking = 2 in the evaluation of E2 and = 1 in evaluating G12 .
The following equations are used for estimating the strength properties of the composite.
Longitudinal tensile strength (Xt ) for most glass reinforced polymer composites (f > m )
can be described by Eq. A.6.
Xt = Ef Vf f
(A.6)
(A.7)
Here, the compressive tensile strength (Xc ) is assumed to be equal to Xt . The transverse
tensile strength (Yt ) for glass or carbon fibre reinforced polymer can be estimated from:
Em
Y t = 1 ( Vf Vf ) 1
E2
m
is the matrix tensile strength.
tm
(A.8)
125
To estimate transverse compressive strength (Yc ), Eq. A.8 can be used by replacing
m
with cm
(the matrix compressive strength). The inplane shear strength (S) for glass
(A.9)
m
is the matrix shear strength.
Finally, the areal weight (Aw ) of fibre, mass per unit area (kg/mm2 ), related to density, f , (kg/mm3 ) of the fibre can provide layer thickness, t ,(mm.) as the following
equation:
t=
Aw
f Vf
(A.10)
Appendix B
Composite failure criteria
In marine structure, for single skin laminates, stiffened plates or unstiffened plates the
most common failure mode is buckling instability due to the unavoidable presence of
some flexure. In this case, plates always fail firstly at the outer ply. The prediction of the
load at which the first ply to fail (First Ply Failure) occurs can be made using a failure
criterion. Failure criteria are classified into two groups: independent failure criteria and
polynomial failure criteria. The application of the correct failure criteria to predict FPF
is dependent on material choice, boundary conditions and loading type.
Independent failure criteria such as maximum stress criterion or maximum strain criterion can identify failure mode but do not include stress or strain interaction effects. For
designing FRP marine structures, designers prefer to use maximum stress criteria because
laminates typically are aligned with the principal stresses so that stress interaction effects
can be neglected. The Failure Index (FI) of this criterion can be presented as follows. It
is noted that a laminate has not failed as long as the FI is less than 1.
1t
1c
, F I1c =
Xt
Xc
2t
2c
F I2t =
, F I2c =
Yt
Yc
3t
3c
, F I3c =
F I3t =
Zt
Zc
F I1t =
126
(B.1)
(B.2)
(B.3)
F I4 =
F I5 =
127
5
S
(B.4)
(B.5)
where i=1,2,3 are principal stresses, i=4,5,6 are principal shear stresses and their subscript
t
and c denote to tensile and compressive stresses respectively. Xt and Xc are respectively
tensile and compressive lamina normal strength in xdirection. Yt and Yc are respectively
tensile and compressive lamina normal strength in ydirection. Zt and Zc are tensile and
compressive lamina normal strength in the zdirection. R is lamina shear strength in
yzdirection, S is lamina shear strength in the xzplane and T is lamina shear strength in
the xyplane.
For more accuracy in failure analysis and more freedom in design, the polynomial failure
criteria should be used because they take into account stress interaction effects. Smith
(1990) suggested the use of the AzziTsai criterion for particular regions such as machinery
seating where complex stress patterns exist. The criterion is developed from von Mises
yield criterion, which is accurate for isotropic materials under combined stresses. A more
complete description of laminate strength under combined loads is given by the TsaiWu
criterion. Based on this criterion, ply failure occurs when the Failure Index (FI) exceeds
one or ply failure occurs if the following inequality is not satisfied.
F I = Fi i + Fij i j < 1
(B.6)
where all components such as stresses (), Fi and Fij coefficients (i, j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
refer to the the principal material directions.
F1 = (1/Xt 1/Xc ),
F2 = (1/Yt 1/Yc ),
F3 = (1/Zt 1/Zc)
F11 = 1/(Xt Xc ),
F22 = 1/(YtYc ),
F33 = 1/(Zt Zc )
F12
F44 = 1/R2 ,
F55 = 1/S 2 ,
F66 = 1/T 2
References
[1] Alm F. (1983) GRP versus steel in ship construction, Naval Forces, Vol.4, No.5,
pp.5455
[2] Aitharaju V.R. and Averill R.C. (1990) c0 zigzag finite element for analysis of
laminated composite beams, Journal of Engineering mechanics, Vol.125, pp.323330
[3] Aksu G. and Ali R. (1976) Free vibration analysis of stiffened plates using finite
difference method, Journal of sound and vibration, Vol.48, No.1, pp.1525
[4] Andrews D. (1981) Creative ship design, Transaction of RINA, Vol. 123, pp. 447471
[5] Andrews D. (2003) A creative approach to ship architecture, Transaction of RINA,
Vol. 145, p.229252
[6] Balendra T. and Shanmugam N.E.(1985) Free vibration of plated structures by
grillage method, Journal of sound and vibration, Vol.99, No.3, pp.333350
[7] Barboro E.J. and Reddy J.N. (1990) General twodimensional theory of laminated
cylindrical shells, AIAA Journal, Vol .28, pp.545553
[8] Bazaraa M., Jarvis J. and Sherali H. (1990) Linear programing and network flows,
John & Sons, New York
[9] Bedair O.K. (1997) Analysis of stiffened plates under lateral loading using sequential
quadratic programming (SQP), Computer & Structures, Vol. 62, pp.6380.
[10] Bisagni C. and Lanzi L. (2002) Postbuckling optimisation of composite stiffened
panels using neural networks, Composite Structures, Vol.58, pp.237247
128
REFERENCES
129
[11] Box M.J. (1965) A new method of constrained optimization and a comparison,
Computer Journal, Vol.8, pp.4245
[12] Bruyneel M. and Fleury C. (2002) Composite structures optimization using sequential convex programming, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol.33, pp.697711
[13] Canadian highway bridge design code (CHBDC) (2000) Ontario Ministry of transportation and communications, Downsview, Ontario, Canada
[14] Carroll C.W. (1961) The created response surface technique for optimizing nonlinear
restrained systems, Operation Research, Vol.9, pp. 169184
[15] Chalmers D.W. (1982) Preliminary structural design of warship, Transaction of
RINA, Vol. 124
[16] Chattopadhyay B., Sinha P.K. and Mukhopadhyay M. (1992) Finite element free
vibration analysis of eccentrically stiffened composite plates, Journal of reinforced
plastics and composites, Vol.11, No.9, pp.10031034
[17] Chattopadhyay B, Sinnha P.K. and Mukhopadhyay M. (1993) Finite element analysis of beadstiffened composite plates under transverse loads, Journal of reinforced
plastics and composites, Vol.12, No.1, pp.76100
[18] Cheung M.S. (1984) Analysis of continuous curved boxgirder bridges by the finite
strip method China Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1984, pp. 110
[19] Cheung M.S., Bakht B. and Jaeger L.G. (1982) Analysis of box girder bridges by
grillage and orthotropic plate methods, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.
9, no. 4, pp. 595601
[20] Clarkson J. (1963) Test of flat plated grillages under uniform pressure, Transaction
of RINA, Vol.105
[21] Clarkson J. (1965) The elastic analysis of flat grillages, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
REFERENCES
130
[22] Costa L., Fernandes L., Figueiredo I., Judice J., Leal R. and Oliveira P. (2004)
Multiple and singleobjective approaches to laminate optimization with genetic
algorithms, Struct. Multidisc. Optim., Vol.27, pp.5565
[23] Dang C. and Li M. (2006) A floatingpoint genetic algorithm for solving the unit
commitment problem, European journal of operation research, (article in press)
[24] Datoo M.H. (1991) Mechanics of fibrous composites, Elsevier science publishers
Ltd., Essex, England
[25] Dawe D.J., Lam S.S.E. and Azizian Z.G. (1993) Finite strip postlocal buckling
analysis of composite prismatic plate structures, Computers and Structures, Vol.48,
No.6, pp.10111023
[26] Dawe D.J. and Peshkam V. (1996) Note on finite strip buckling analysis of composite
plate structures, Composite structures, Vol.34, pp.163168
[27] Deka D.J., Sandeep G., Chakrabory D. and Dutta A. (2005) Multiobjective optimization of laminated composites using finite element method and genetic algorithm, Journal of reinforced plastics and composites, Vol.24, No.3, pp.273285
[28] Eric Greene Associates Inc. (2001) Marine composites, Second edition, Annapolis,
MD21403, USA
[29] Evan H.R., Alinia M.M., Labanti P., and Shanmugam N.E. (1983) Theoretical investigation of the collapse of multicellular structures under lateral loading, Journal
of constructional steel research, Vol.3, No.2, pp.2330
[30] Fiacco A.V. and McCormick G.P. (1967) The slacked unconstrained minimization
technique for convex programing, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, Vol.15,
pp.505515
[31] Fisher K.W. (1972) Economic optimisation procedures in preliminary ship design,
Transactions of RINA, Vol. 114, pp. 293317.
REFERENCES
131
[32] Frieze P.A., Winkle I.E., Das P.K. and Baird D. (1987) Optimisation of stiffened
cylinders in offshore construction, Transaction of RINA, Vol. 129
[33] Gantovnik V.B., G
urdal Z. and Watson L.T. (2002) A genetic algorithm with memory for optimal design of laminated sandwich composite panels, Composite Structures, Vol.58, pp.513520
[34] Gen M. and Cheng R. (1997) Genetic algorithm and engineering design, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
[35] Goswami S. (1997) Response of composite stiffened shells under stochastic excitation, Journal of reinforced plastics and composites, Vol.16, No.16, pp.14921522
[36] Guo M. and Harik I.E. (1996) Free vibration of stiffened composite laminates, Proceeding of engineering mechanics, Vol.2, pp.11631166
[37] Harik I.E., Guo M.W. and Madasamy C.M. (1997) Bending of stiffened composite
laminates, International SAMPE Technical conference, Vol.29, Composites for Real
World, pp.744750
[38] Hirano Y. (1979) Optimum design of laminated plates under axial compression,
AIAA Journal, Vol.17, pp.10171019
[39] Horsmon Jr. A.W. and Bernhard B. (2003) Exploiting technology to optimise the
design of large composite vessels, Transactionssociety of naval architects and marine
engineers, Vol.111, pp.309330
[40] HosseiniToudeshky H., Ovesy H.R. and Kharazi M. (2005) The development of an
approximate method for the design of basedstiffened composite panels, Thinwalled
structures, Vol. 43, no.11, pp.16631676
[41] Huffington N.J. Jr. and Blacksburg V.A. (1956) Theoretical determination of rigidity
properties of orthogonally stiffened plates, Journal of applied mechanics, Vol.78
[42] Hughes O. (1997) Two first principles structural designs of a fast ferryallaluminium
ad allcomposite, FAST97 papers, pp.9198
REFERENCES
132
[43] Jang C.D. , Seo S.I. and Kim S.K. (1996) A study on the optimum structural design
of surface effect ships, Marine Structures, Vol.9, pp.519544
[44] Kang J.H. and Kim C.G. (2005) Minimumweight design of compressively loaded
composite plates and stiffened panels for postbuckling strength by genetic algorithm,
Composite Structures, Vol.69, pp.239246
[45] Kant T. and Swaminathan K. (2002) Analytical solutions for the static analysis
of laminated composite and sandwich plates based on higher order refined theory,
Composite Structures, Vol.56, pp.329344
[46] Karr, D.G., Beier K.P. and Rigo P. (2002) A framework for simulationbased design
of ship structures, Journal of ship production, Vol.18(1), 3346
[47] Keane A.J. (1988) A computer based method for hull form concept design: applications to stability analyses, Transaction of RINA, Vol. 130
[48] Kelley J.E.Jr. (1960) The cutting plane method for solving convex programs, Journal of SIAM, Vol.8, pp.703712
[49] Kim C.W. and Lee J.S. (2005) Optimal design of laminated composite plates for
maximum buckling load using genetic algorithm, Proc. IMechE Part CJournal of
mechanical engineering science, Vol. 219, pp.869878
[50] Kim C.W., Hwang W., Park H.C., and Han K.S. (1997) Stacking sequence optimization of laminated plates, Composite Structures, Vol.39, pp.283288
[51] Krisek V., Evan H.R., and Ahmad M.K.M. (1990) Shear lag analysis for composite
box girder, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 121
[52] Lazaides T.O. (1952) The design and analysis of openwork prestressed concrete
beam grillages, Civil Engineering, Vol.47, No. 552
[53] Lee Y.J. and Lin C.C. (2004) Optimised design of composite propeller, Mechanics
of advanced materials and structures, Vol.11, pp.1730
REFERENCES
133
[54] Leung A.Y.T. Junchuan N., Lim C.W., and Song K., (2003) A new unconstrined
thirdorder plate theory for Navier solutions of symmetrically laminated plates,
Computers and Structures, Vol.81, pp. 25392548
[55] Liu D. and Li X. (1996) An over view of laminate theories based on displacement
hypothesis, Journal of composite materials, Vol.30, No.14, pp.15391561
[56] Lo K.H., Christensen R.M. and Wu E.M. (1977) A highorder theory of plate
deformationpart 1: homogeneous plate, Journal of Applied mechanics, Vol.44,
pp.669676
[57] Loughlan J. (1996) Buckling of composite stiffened box sections subjected to compression and bending, Composite structures, Vol.35, No. 1, pp.101116
[58] Loughlan J. and Delaunoy J.M. (1993) Buckling of composite stiffened plates with
some emphasis on the effects of fiber orientation and on loading configuration, Composite structures, Vol.25, pp.485494
[59] Loukakis T.A. (1988) A new form of optimization diagrams for preliminary propeller
design, Transaction of RINA, Vol. 131
[60] Lu H.C. and Tzeng S.T. (2000) Genetic algorithm approach for designing arbitrary
FIR log filters, ISCAS 2000, IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems,
May 2831, Geneva, Switzerland
[61] Maneepan K., Jeong H.K. and Shenoi R.A. (2005) Optimisation of FRP tophat
stiffened single skin and monocoque sandwich plates using genetic algorithm, Proceeding of 15th international offshore and polar engineering conference, June 1924,
Seoul, Korea, pp. 513518
[62] Maneepan K., Shenoi R.A., Jeong H.K. and Blake J.I.R. (2006) Multiobjective optimisation of orthogonally tophatstiffened composite laminates plates, Proceedings
of 25th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, June
49, 2006, Hamburg, Germany, OMAE200692442
REFERENCES
134
REFERENCES
135
REFERENCES
136
[84] Rao S.S. (1978) Optimization: theory and applications, Wiley Eastern, New Delhi
[85] Rao K.P. (2000) Study of the behaviour of laminated composite beam, plate and
shell structures using some specifically developed finite elements, Journal of spacecraft technology, Vol.10, No.2, pp.113
[86] Razzaq R.J. and ElZafrany A. (2005) Nonlinear stress analysis of composite layered plates and shells using a mesh reduction method, Engineering analysis with
boundary elements, Vol.29, No.12, pp.11151123
[87] Reddy J.N. (1984) A simple higherorder theory for laminated composite plates,
Journal of applied mechanics, Vol.51, pp.745752
[88] Reddy J.N. (1997) Mechanics of laminated composite plates, CRC Press Inc., London
[89] Riche R.L. and Haftka R.T. (1993) Optimization of laminates stacking sequence
for buckling load maximization by genetic algorithm, AIAA Journal, Vol.33, No.5,
pp.951956
[90] Rigo P. (2001) A moduleoriented tool for optimum design of stiffened structuresPart I, Marine Structures, Vol.14, pp.611629
[91] Rigo P. and Fleury C. (2001) Scantling optimization based on convex linearizations
and a dual approachPart II, Marine structures, Vol.14, pp.631649
[92] Rosen J.B. (1960) The gradient project method of nonlinear programming: Part
Inonlinear constraints, SIAM Journal, Vol. 8, pp.181217
[93] Rules for Building and Classing HighSpeed Craft. (2001), American Bureau of
Shipping: New York.
[94] Rules for Classification of High Speed and Light Craft. (1991), Det Norske Veritas:
Hovik.
REFERENCES
137
[95] Rules for the Classification of Special Service Craft. (2004), Lloyds Register of
Shipping: London.
[96] Sadek E.A. and Tawfik S.A. (2000) Finite element model for the analysis of stiffened
laminated plates, Computers and structures, Vol. 75, pp.369383
[97] Schmit L.A. and Mehrinfar M. (1982) Multilevel optimum design of structures with
fibercomposite stiffenedpanel components, AIAA Journal, Vol.20, pp.138147
[98] Sciuva M.D., Gherlone M. and Lomario D. (2003) Multiconstrained optimization
of laminated and sandwich plates using evolutionary algorithms and higherorder
plate theories, Composite Structures, Vol.59, pp.149154
[99] Sen P. (1992) Marine design: the multiple criteria approach, Transactions of RINA,
Vol. 134, pp. 261276.
[100] Shenoi R.A. and Wellicome J.F. (1993a) Composite materials in maritime structures: volume 1 fundamental aspects, Cambridge university press, Cambridge.
[101] Sivakumar K., Iyengar N.G.R. and Deb K. (1998) Optimum design of laminated
composite plates with cutouts using a genetic algorithm, Composite Structures,
Vol.42, pp.265279
[102] Smith C.S. (1964) Analysis of grillage structures by the force method, Transaction
of RINA, Vol.106
[103] Smith C.S. (1966) Elastic analysis of stiffened plating under lateral loading, Transaction of RINA, Vol.108, pp.113131
[104] Smith C.S. (1972) Buckling problems in the design of fibreglassreinforced plastic
ships, Journal of ship research, Vol.116, No.3, pp.174190
[105] Smith C.S. (1990) Design of marine structures in composite materials, Elsevier
applied science, London
REFERENCES
138
[106] Smith C.S. and Clarke J.D. (1986) Advances in marine structures, Elsevier applied
science, London.
[107] Smith G.K. (1973) A design scheme for ship structures, Transactions of RINA, Vol.
115, pp. 4766.
[108] Soares C.M.M., Correia V.F., Mateus H. and Herskovits J. (1995) A discrete model
for the optimal design of thin composite plateshell type structures using a twolevel
approach, Composite Structures, Vol.30, pp.147157
[109] Soremekun G.,G
urdal Z., Haftka R.T. and Watson L.T. (2001) Composite laminate
design optimization by genetic algorithm with generalized elitist selection, Computers and Structures, Vol.79, pp.131143
[110] Sponberge E.W. (1986) Carbon fibre sailboat hulls: how to optimize the use of an
expensive material, Marine Technology, Vol.23, pp.165174
[111] SP Systems (2006) ,The SP Systems guide to composite, Retrieved January 8, 2006
from website: www.spsystems.com
[112] Tan K.H. and Montage P. (1991) Simple grillage analogy for the analysis of steel
sandwich panels with penetrations, Structural engineer, Vol.69, No.15, pp.271276
[113] Timosheko S.A. and WoinowskyKrieger S. (1959) Theory of plates and shells,
McGRAWHILL book company, INC., London.
[114] Toledano A. and Murakami H. (1987) A composite plate theory for arbitrary laminate configurations, Journal of applied mechanics, Vol.54, pp.181189
[115] Tucker J.S. (1979) Glass reinforced plastic submersibles, Trans. NEC Int. Engrs &
Shipbuilders, Vol.95, No.2, 1979
[116] Turvey G.J. and Der Avanessian N.G.V. (1985) Elastic large deflection analysis of
ringstiffened circular plates using graded finite differences, NUMETA 85, Numerical
methods in engineering: theory and applications, Proceedings of the international
conference, Swansea, Wales, pp.875884
REFERENCES
139
[117] Vendeler G. (1945) Grillage beams in ships and similar structures, Oslo: Grondahl
& Son
[118] Walker M., Reiss T. and Adali S. (1997) Optimal design of symmetrically laminated
plates for minimum deflection and weight, Composite Structures, Vol.39, pp.337346
[119] Walker M. and Smith R.E. (2003) A technique for the multiobjective optimisation of
laminated composite structures using genetic algorithms and finite element analysis,
Composite Structures, Vol.62, pp.123128
[120] Wang S. and Dawe D.J. (1996) Finite strip large deflection and postoverallbuckling analysis of diaphragmsupported plate structures, Computers and structures, Vol.61, No.1, pp.155170
[121] Wang X., Oguamanam D.C.D. and Hansen J.S. (2005) Shape optimisation of stiffeners in stiffened composite plates with thermal residual stresses, Structural and
multidisciplinary optimisation, Vol.30, No.1, pp.3842
[122] Wastson D.G.M. (1976) Some ship design methods, Transactions of RINA, Vol. 118,
pp. 279321.
[123] Whitney J.M. (1972) Stress analysis of thick laminated composite and sandwich
plates, Journal of composite material, Vol.6, pp.426440
[124] Whiney J.M. and Pagano N.J. (1970) Shear deformation in heterogeneous
anisotropic plates, Transaction of the ASME: Journal of Applied mechanics, Vol.37,
No.4, pp.10311036
[125] Yoda T. and Atluri S.N. (1992) Postbuckling analysis of stiffened laminated composite panels using a higherorder shear deformation theory, Computational mechanics,
Vol.9, No.6, pp.390404
[126] Yuan W.X. and Dawe D.J. (2004) Free vibration and stability analysis of stiffened
sandwich plates, Composite structures, Vol.63, No.1, pp.123137.
Muito mais do que documentos
Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.
Cancele quando quiser.